Spiritual Spectrum (Part II)

 Spiritual Spectrum

Part II

        Over on the Conservative side of the spectrum, everything trends in an expectedly opposite direction. I said in the first part that advancement doesn’t necessarily correlate along the spectrum. This means that a teacher being positioned in one portion of the spectrum doesn’t automatically make them more or less advanced than the teachers in another. 

        For example, it’s possible for a Spiritually Conservative set of teachings to be more advanced than even a Spiritually Futuristic collection. I’ll explain how here in a minute but, the important thing to note is that advancement is largely an independent variable of the spectrum. Largely...not entirely. 

        To understand this better (and it is crucial to understand this better before analyzing the Conservative side of the spectrum) remember the example of the Barbaric pre-civilization that I used in the first part. It has no established infrastructure or system of governance yet, the individuals within it are so incredibly advanced that they live more luxurious lives than even citizens of a highly developed Futuristic society. 

        Contemplate just how advanced the individuals of such a society would have to be to lead that luxurious of lives without community, policing, legal systems, Federal regulations, or advanced technology. They would all be super-men and super-women each in their 

own right. 

        Think about it...they don’t have the technology to create climate-controlled shelter, so they regulate their own bodily temperatures. They don’t have a police force to come arrest criminals or jailing facilities to throw them in, so all of them are morally-accountable. They don’t have Federal regulations to make sure that no one’s using their businesses to take hazardous advantage of others. 

        For example, if any of them owns a meat-packaging company, there’s no Federal regulation which makes it against the law to sell disease-ridden meat to the entire population. So either 1. the owners of all the meat-packaging companies are morally-upright enough to not take advantage of the lack of regulations or 2. every single person in the population has some ability that makes them immune to disease or illness. In which case, the packaging and selling of dirty meat makes no difference. Diseased-meat is just as good as clean meat for them. 

        Finally, they have no developed sense of community. Remember, they’re a Barbaric pre-civilizational population of loosely-organized social systems. No sense of community means no “neighborly-values.” None of them bother to look out for one another. Instead, they act freely as Barbarians with no strict moral obligations and do unto their neighbors whatever they see fit. 

        Note, this seemingly contradicts what I just said about them all being morally-responsible but you’ll see how it actually doesn’t. Here’s where it gets interesting...

        If none of them have any communal moral values and take advantage of their neighbors in whatever way they want, picture how advanced their abilities would have to be in order to continue living as luxuriously as a Futuristic civilization in the midst of all the chaos that could ensue. 

        If someone wants to use their friend as target practice with a weapon, they’ll go ahead and do that. It doesn’t matter that this population’s weapons would be technologically unadvanced. Given how super-human these individuals would have to be, even bow-and-arrows would probably be shot with as much force as a gun. So for all intents and purposes, let’s just say the person is using their friend as target-practice with a gun. 

        So the only way for that targeted individual to keep living comfortably despite being shot at random by their neighbor is to literally be bullet-proof. Not only would they be able to survive the shots, they wouldn’t even suffer wounds or annoying BB gun stings (because remember, they live luxuriously rather than just surviving). 

        Therefore, the violent gun-shooting neighbor isn’t actually doing anything immoral by taking Barbaric advantage of their friend. Their friend doesn’t even notice the gunshots so they don’t effect any part of his/her life. The neighbor is free to go about using him/her as target practice while the target is free to do whatever they like. 

        See...Libertarian utopia. None of their individual freedoms infringe upon another’s, even if they use their freedoms to violent or “immoral” ends. Nobody even needs to worry about communal values to be moral. This is how the population would remain morally-noble even if they did choose to take violent advantage of each other. 

        With all this, we see how a Barbaric population that is advanced enough could be equal to a Futuristic civilization. Arguably, the Barbaric population would actually be more advanced rather than merely equal since they’re able to do more with less. 

        However, there always remains the question, “what if the Barbaric population were allowed to live in a Futuristic civilization? Wouldn’t their capabilities be augmented by the technological capabilities of that civilization?” 

        This is a very reasonable question and, if true, it would still imply that Futuristic systems are inherently more advanced than Barbaric ones. Under the Barbaric system, the Barbaric population would be super-advanced but under a Futuristic system, they would be even more advanced. So how can we say that advancement is truly independent of the spectrum when it still seems to correlate directly to it? 

        Well, advancement only correlates directly to the spectrum if we’re referring to the advancement of technology & infrastructure. As you move from “right” to “left” infrastructure becomes more complex and developed since more nuances are being added to the field (increased nuances = increased complexity). 

        Increase in infrastructure leads to increasingly broad sets of values which leads to wider acceptance of different cultures which leads to more diversity in perspective which leads to increased de-centralization. Meaning, that the individual becomes less important. You value your own perspective and preferences less and less. 

        The collective becomes increasingly more valuable as the individual becomes increasingly less valuable. This is why - on the political spectrum - you see Libertarianism which highly values the individual on the far right and Communism which values the collective on the far left. 

        Increased value of the collective creates more communal values and develops a broader infrastructure. Quite literally, communities become more developed and advance further. 

        Therefore, more Progressive societies are inherently more advanced in terms of community and infrastructure. However, they’re less advanced in the context of individual power and freedom. In that sense, advancement correlates to the spectrum in the opposite direction (it gets more advanced as you move further to the right). 

        So while Futuristic civilizations will be more advanced than Barbaric populations in terms of infrastructure, it’s the Barbaric populations that’ll be more advanced in personal freedom and self-reliant power. 

        This means that yes, the super-human Barbaric population in our example would become even more advanced by living in a Futuristic society with enhanced technological capabilities augmenting their already advanced personal abilities. 

        However, that’s only if they take the technology and leave everything else. If they were to also adopt a more developed infrastructure with communal obligations, regulations, and policing (all of which they don’t need) their population would actually become less advanced because their freedom would be decreased. 

        On top of that, if their intelligence is equally as advanced as their other personal abilities, then they could probably learn to develop advanced technology on their own without moving to or turning into a Futuristic civilization. In that case, they wouldn’t even necessarily need to adopt the technology. So their Barbaric way of life is practically more advanced in every way (at least for them). 

        This shows us the general correlation as we move towards either end of the spectrum. From right to left, complexity advances. From left to right, freedom or personal empowerment advances. Empowering each individual with more freedom allows them to be more effective in getting what they want (for better or for worse). So you could also say that, from right to left, it’s complexity that advances while from left to right, it’s effectivity that does so. 

        The same applies to our spiritual spectrum. Spiritual teachings that are further to the left are going to be more complex and nuanced. They’ll value a broader set of spiritual states and experiences. They’ll also see more nuances and stages to Enlightenment as well as other pursuits. However, they’ll be less empowering and more de-centralizing. 

        Even the example of physical God-consciousness that I referenced as Futuristic in the last part is going to be less empowering. It would simply be a more physical and more complex version of the spiritual states that the Progressives teach. 

       For instance, people who take psychedelics like 5-MeO-DMT and experience becoming God at a not-so-physical level often report that when they become God, their perspectives also become like that of God’s. Meaning, they see everything as already perfect as if they were the ones who designed it. Essentially, their perspectives come to agree with God’s perspective. 

        So in that God-state, they have no desire to change the world. No desire to erase cancer. No desire to rid people of sickness. Simply put, they have no desire to make the world more positive from their perspective because their perspective gets de-centralized and less empowered. Sound familiar? 

        This is what happens as you move further to the left and access more complex spiritual states. So it would only make sense that even if we had the Futuristic technology to transform you into a physical God who’s physically Enlightened with physical God-consciousness, you would experience the exact same thing as those 5-MeO-DMT trippers. The only difference is that you would be physically embodying that God-consciousness before people’s very eyes. 

        Although, physically embodying God-consciousness might make you even less inclined to change the Universe than a 5-MeO tripper because now even your physical impulses would no longer be human. Again, the further to the left you go, the more de-centralized you become. 

        So while moving further to the left allows you to access higher and more complex stages of spirituality & Enlightenment, it doesn’t give you more freedom or power. It actually gives you less of those. 

        Freedom & power are expected to be found further to the right, given that every other field - even the political field - says so. This means that as we analyze the Conservative side of the spiritual spectrum, we’ll be seeing less complexity and more effectivity. You could also say, less Enlightenment but more Empowerment. 

        But first, we have to leave Enlightenment behind before we can truly analyze the increase in Empowerment. Enlightenment is a Spiritually Conservative value but not necessarily a value of the ultraconservative paths (though it can be). 

        Think of how political Conservatives value established traditions while political Barbarians would be pre-establishment. Well, similar to that, Spiritual Conservatives value traditional forms of spirituality while a Spiritual Barbarian may not. 

        Enlightenment is a traditional form of spirituality. Therefore, it’s going to be valued by Spiritual Conservatives but likely not by the ultraconservatives. So after I get through the Conservative portion of the spectrum, I’ll be able to leave Enlightenment behind and analyze Empowerment more in-depth. 

        So let’s start there. On the redder side of the spectrum, right-of-center is Sadhguru. He’s not hardcore Conservative because he doesn’t stick to one traditional school of thought. He doesn’t just teach Advaita or Vaishnavism or Shaivism or any one particular sect of Hinduism. 

        He’s pretty eclectic when it comes to Hinduism but he’s still predominantly Hindu. Therefore, he’s not quite varied enough to be Spiritually Moderate in that respect. The Moderate New Agers are pulling from not just Hinduism but Buddhism and Zen and Wicca and the Native American folk religions and...well...you get the idea. 

        Sadhguru also leans more right-of-center when it comes to the issue of psychedelic-usage. He’s plainly stated that they can be harmful and a hindrance to spiritual practice (an undoubtedly Conservative standpoint). However, he’s also said that they can be good for getting people interested in spirituality although, he doesn’t think they can take you very deep into it. This leans more Moderate. So again, he’s no hardcore Conservative. 

        If you wanna see a hardcore Conservative, then check out Peter Ralston. I’ve pegged him down as very Conservative and for good reason. He’s essentially a zen purist in the sense that all states (without exception) aren’t going to lead you to Enlightenment. For Ralston, Consciousness and Awakening are completely independent of states. 

        Even Oneness with the Universe is just a useless state that could leave you no more Enlightened than a man stubbing his toe in the garden. In Ralston’s words, “it’s just more STUFF!” 

        Spiritually Conservative teachers tend to be purists in this manner. Zen teachers are largely Conservative for this reason. Spirituality is a homogenous field to the Conservatives. There’s no crystal healing or astral projection or telekinesis...just Enlightenment. Enlightenment isn’t just a facet of spirituality. Enlightenment is Spirituality. 

        There’s no mix of diverse and colorful paths because all those colors are just flashy distractions. Psychedelics are regarded as the same. They’re just useless states and distractions keeping you hypnotized by the illusion. All you really want - according to the Conservatives - is Awakening from that illusion. 

        Enlightenment is greater than any God-consciousness or divinity. Siddhartha Gautama - who’s famously known as the Buddha - was considered by some to have been beyond Divine simply because he attained Buddhahood. Enlightenment is more valuable than any divinity to the Spiritually Conservative. 

        But to the Spiritually Barbaric, Enlightenment is just a high-browed attempt at Godliness. Why drop all states when you can become spiritually enthralled by indulging in them? Indulgence, orgasm, rapture, and the throws of passion are the gateway to Godliness. 

        By this point, we’ve left Enlightenment behind since it’s very unlikely for the Barbaric to find a need for it. They could still desire it but will most likely go for “letting-loose” over strict meditative Enlightenment practices. Just a hunch...

        Spiritually Barbaric teachings allow for more freedom & Empowerment. Spirituality isn’t something to be found in transcending life and its states like the Conservatives think. Rather, it’s found in life itself. It’s in the gross, not the subtle. 

        Going further to the right, we reach Primitive. Here, I have Wim Hof listed. To be Primitive in spirituality is to solely rely on individual willpower to satisfy all of your survival needs and desires. 

        For example, Wim Hof teaches a method that’s been named after him (the Wim Hof method). This method is about using nothing but breathing exercises to regulate your own body temperature and even control your immunity levels. 

        Wim Hof has put himself in the Guinness Book of World Records on multiple occasions by using this method. He’s climbed to the top of Mount Everest in nothing but shorts and submerged himself in ice practically naked. He’s earned the nickname “the ice-man” for this reason. 

        He’s even taught his method to various students, proving to scientists that his abilities aren’t dependent on unique genetics or physiology like they originally thought. Doctors have administered low-level diseases to some of Wim Hof’s students in hospitalized experiments and they were able to render themselves immune to illness using his method (okay, I’ll cite this source since it’s so unbelievable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMjhwFE1Zw). 

        This leaves Wim Hof’s teaching method as a perfect example of Primitive Spirituality. Using your own individual willpower, you can regulate bodily temperature and fight illness (taking care of your basic survival needs). You can also use the Wim Hof method to take care of mental troubles as well. 

        In fact, Wim Hof’s deep grief over the death of his wife is what initially led him down the path to discovering his method of self-control. If it can regulate mental states as well as physiological needs, then it’s possible that it could be used to satisfy desires or urges without the need to exploit others in a Barbaric manner. 

        Such a practice would also be Spiritually Primitive because it’d be even more self-reliant and freeing than Barbaric social exploitation. Therefore, it’d be even more ultraconservative. 

        Now I’m not saying that Wim Hof has scientifically proven that everything can be regulated through sheer willpower. His students have only demonstrated immunity to low-level diseases rather than anything like cancer. They’ve demonstrated enough bodily temperature control to hike outside in blizzards but not enough to be fire-proof. 

        So there’s much left for him and his students to prove as possible. However, what I’m saying is that Wim Hof and his teaching method do prove that sheer individual willpower and practice can control more than people originally thought possible. Far more. So who knows what else one’s own self could have power over? 

        Any method that could ever allow people to perform powerful feats through their own willpower - no matter how outlandish - would be Spiritually Primitive simply because it places the individual in a position of power over their life. 

        Even if such a method were to be radically more Empowering than the Wim Hof method - such as giving yourself physical God-consciousness without the Futuristic vat - it would still be Spiritually Primitive. In fact, gaining physical God-consciousness through a Primitive method rather than a Futuristic means might be better in preserving your sober mindset. 

        This means that you could actually choose to change the world in a positive way while you’re up there in the “God-seat” rather than having your human desires de-centralized (I imagine this is how Ethan Kahn is still able to experience erasing suffering for some Universes). So Primitive Spirituality can be far more powerful and advanced than even Futuristic Spirituality. 

        Progressive & Futuristic Spirituality is still reliant on genetics while Spiritually Primitive methods function independently of individual genetics (like how Wim Hof’s method proved to scientists that his abilities weren’t merely genetic and could actually be taught). 

        Now yes, it’d be more difficult to attain high spiritual states like 5-MeO highs or physical God-consciousness through Primitive methods. You’d stand a better chance of attaining those extremely high states through Progressive or Futuristic practices but you’d probably have less power in those states if you were to do so (you’d become more Enlightened but less Empowered). Attaining those states through more Conservative or ultraconservative means would likely provide more Empowerment, giving you more freedom to do more. 

        So again, the Progressive end of the spectrum is more advanced in terms of infrastructure. It becomes easier to attain higher spiritual states as you move in that direction. Yet, the Conservative side is more advanced in terms of power and freedom. By that I mean, it’s not as easy to attain the states but it’s easier to do more once you’re in those states. 

        Even that’s not entirely the case though. Pushing further to the right past Primitive creates an interesting scenario. Going this far to the right provides so much freedom and control that you even gain dictation over the process by which you attain each spiritual state. 

        That’s right, so now think back to what I just said a few moments ago about the Progressive end of the spectrum making it easier to pursue higher spiritual states. Yeah, that no longer holds true once you’ve gone this far to the right. Even that correlation advances further to the right rather than to the left by this point. 

        Basically, this means that the Barbaric population in our earlier example could enhance their capabilities more through an ultra-Primitive method than a Futuristic technological method. This is because complexity now builds further to the right rather than the left. So both complexity and effectivity are dominated by the right, beginning at this point. 

        Effectivity still increases in addition to complexity because it’s a different broadening of complexity. Rather than bringing in more perspectives and de-centralizing your own individual preferences (as happens with the increased complexity on the left) complexity instead builds through individual dominance over more perspectives. You incorporate them into support of your own preferences and this simultaneously keeps increasing Empowerment. 

        Essentially, you move from individualistic (Primitive) to super-individualistic. The individual isn’t just the sole ruler and benefactor of their own selves but of a broader environment including additional selves. Other selves doesn’t have to mean other people. It can simply mean any object or entity in the environment e.g. any organism, any animal, any person, any object etc. 

        So whereas Primitive methods such as the Wim Hof method provide each individual with power to control and regulate themselves, ultra-Primitive methods are going to provide each individual the ability to influence the surrounding environment in addition to themselves. They command their environment through their own willpower. 

        Command over their environment makes them able to render higher spiritual states more accessible. For example, if the scientific laws of the Universe dictate that physical God-consciousness can’t be easily reached without super-advanced infrastructure, the ultra-Primitive individual can just re-shape those laws through their own willpower. They can make physical God-consciousness more easily accessible. 

        So there you have it. Higher and more complex states become easier to access further to the right rather than the left by this point. Complexity, in addition to effectivity, correlates to the right. 

        This’ll make it easier to understand the next ultraconservative portion of the spectrum. I actually had to add two new ultraconservative terms just to account for Ethan’s more radical teachings. 

        Primeval is ultra-Primitive. Command over your environment in addition to yourself is the provision. Primitive individuals still need to adapt to their environments but Primeval individuals don’t. They adapt their environments to themselves. 

        So Primitive individuals can survive solo without any culture or society. They’re culturally-independent (culturally primary). Primeval individuals can survive without even their environment. They’re essentially, independent of the Natural Order (so organically-independent or organically primary). 

        This is exactly why I felt the need to add two new terms to the spectrum. Being super-individualistic is radically different than being individualistic or Primitive. There needed to be a term for that level of independence in addition to culturally-independent. So I picked the term Primeval (even though the dictionary definition is essentially the same as Primitive) to account for organically primary in the same manner that Primitive refers to culturally primary. 

        Primeval Spirituality can refer to any level of control over any scale of environment in existence. Slightly Primeval Spirituality may only have control over a single biome or world. 

        Slight-Moderately Primeval Spirituality can have levels of control that extend to an entire cosmos. Moderately Primeval is having power over an entire multiverse. Not saying that I believe or don’t believe in the existence of a multiverse but I need to bring in multiversal scales in order to track Ethan’s radical teachings and provide them a place on the spectrum. So for that reason, I’m including multiversal levels of power on the spectrum and referring to them as Moderately Primeval. 

        I’ll also say that Moderately Primeval Spirituality is only going to refer to multiversal scales at finite-dimensional levels e.g. 3-D multiverse, 4-D multiverse, 9-D multiverse, 100-D multiverse etc. I’m having to adopt Ethan’s lingo simply to extend the spectrum enough to provide him a place. 

        I’ll consider indefinite-dimensional levels of multiversal control to be very Primeval. So this includes levels of power that are indefinite-dimensionally infinite. 

        I’ll say that extremely Primeval is infinite-dimensional levels of infinite/multiversal power. So an example of extremely Primeval Spirituality is physically re-creating an infinite-dimensional portion of existence to your satisfaction. 

        None of these Primeval levels of control even come close to dominating all sizes of infinity. Extremely Primeval Spirituality can control infinitely many sizes of infinity but not all. Controlling all of existence wouldn’t just make you independent of any one single Natural Order. It would mean that you’re existentially-independent or existentially primary. This is where we need to add one more term...

        Primitive has been used to refer to culturally-independent. Primeval is for organically-independent. Primordial is going to be used to refer to existentially-independent. 

        Primordial Spirituality entails control over all of existence. Simply everything. Objectively Everything. Not just everything in your perspective. 

        Even Primeval Spirituality could be used to refer to control over environments in other perspectives outside of just your own. But again, it still doesn’t imply dominance over all of everything like Primordial Spirituality does. 

        To understand just how radical this end of the spectrum is, realize that even Futuristic forms of spirituality wouldn’t necessarily allow you to access states beyond your own perspective. You would be accessing extremely complex states like physical God-consciousness but all of that would still be your own experience. It wouldn’t be super-individualistic and jump beyond your individual perspective like Primeval Spiritual methods would allow you to do and never even come close to being Objective like Primordial Spiritual methods. 

        Because Spiritually Primordial methods could access Objective control, they’d be perfect for creating a Final Solution to spirituality. By that I mean, suffering, evil, impotence, & all other existential hindrances could be defeated once and for all. Freedom & power would essentially become total by this point. 

        Here’s the place for Ethan Kahn’s more radical teachings about Grace. I’m not going to go into too much detail about them since it’s exclusive content and it takes far too long to explain even if I wanted to share it. 

        Ethan’s content is about presenting such a Final Solution to existence & spirituality but not only that, it offers a continuous model of domains to pick-and-choose from like a Primordial Buffet. 

        Basically, this Final Solution known as Grace gives you complete command over Objectively Everything there is. Even stuff that there isn’t in addition to other stuff is included in your jurisdiction. You get to choose what you want and don’t want there to be rather than things simply existing without you getting a choice. 

        Getting to choose what there is and isn’t is the most basic condition of Primordial Spirituality (the Primordial choice of “to be or not to be”). Therefore, that ability is the bare minimum requirement for me to consider a teaching Spiritually Primordial. It has to include concepts at least equivalent to what Ethan calls “Contra-Existence” for it to be in that portion of the spectrum. 

        Contra-Existence is very slightly Primordial. The Absolute All (what Ethan calls the Absolute Magnitude) is slightly Primordial. Yes, even that is still slight. Considering how ridiculously far Ethan’s model goes, Primordial Spirituality has to match. 

        To be honest, I could even consider the stuff that Ethan refers to as Code Black to be slightly Primordial. I can’t really find a strict place to mark any line simply because Primordial Spirituality is such a free-for-all. There’s always more domains to pick-and-choose from. 

        If you think about, it’s really the exact opposite of the other end of this spectrum (Futuristic). Futuristic Spirituality always presents more relativistic nuances. There’s always more shades of grey (always more nuances and complexities). Primordial Spirituality, on the other hand, always has more Black-&-White (always more “I want this, I don’t want that”). 

        Perpetually Futuristic is the term I used for the furthest ultraprogressive extreme. I have to think of another term to refer to the furthest ultraconservative extreme because Ethan definitely belongs there too. 

        Ethan’s model, as I said, always offers higher and higher domains to access. Even that is an understatement because there’s so many of those domains that even an eternity of naming or suggesting them would never exhaust the model. 

        So it’s not enough for me to merely call it Perpetually-Primordial or Forever-Primordial because forever isn’t enough. Yet I need a term to highlight its continuous (for lack of a better term) nature. 

        Ever-Primordial is the term I’m going to use even though it doesn’t really sound that different. I realize I use a lot of terms that are technically the same but I’ll present another dichotomy here... 

        Ever-Primordial doesn’t just refer to eternally-continuous or the implication of going on forever. It rather implies that you (as the Commander of Everything in Primordial Spirituality) get to choose to keep accessing more and more domains as continuously as you freely choose. 

        There’ll always be more for you to choose from even after always “ends.” So it’s ever-further for you. Ever-Primordial is the best I can do. 

        This places Ethan Kahn at both the furthest extremes. Perpetually Futuristic & Ever-Primordial. 

        Some examples of the portions that I didn’t place any teachers in (such as Barbaric & Primeval) can be shared. I would say that Grigori Rasputin is a pretty good example of a Spiritually Barbaric person. If you read about his life and teachings, you’ll instantly know why. 

        He taught that indulging in sin was the way to free yourself from sin and become closer to God. He took advantage of women, had various orgies, gained social dominance over the royal class of the Russian Empire etc. He sought Godliness and mystical power not through Enlightenment but Empowerment. 

        I won’t go into too much detail about him here but possibly in a later post. Primeval Spirituality doesn’t really possess any teachers that I could point to as examples. I could use the 2019 movie Godzilla: King of the Monsters as an example of Primeval. 

        Not to spoil anything, but the monsters in that movie are referred to as the first gods. They possess power and dominion over the planet in a foundational way that human beings don’t. Therefore, they’re considered the rightful rulers over the planet rather than humans. They control the environment and habitats through their very nature. So they ultimately determine the fate of the world. 

        I imagine that this is why there aren’t really any Primeval teachers. Primeval Spirituality simply invokes too much power for the likes of “mortal men.” Though yes, this does mean that Ethan Kahn is even further to the right than Godzilla. Someone turn that into a meme. 

        The only teacher that I could possibly point to as having been Primeval was Jesus. Although, I don’t say that confidently because I haven’t studied his supposed teachings too closely and even then, they’re just that: supposed. 

        If we assume that what he was quoted as teaching in the Bible was accurate then, he seemed to discuss the corruption of this world and how he offered salvation from it. He also seems to have taught some Nonduality given many of the verses but not in any way that implies he was zen or Spiritually Conservative. 

        His spirituality in the Bible doesn’t seem nuanced enough to call him Moderate or Progressive either. Then again, given the times, he may have been more Progressive. 

        Ultimately, he seems to be someone who considered himself as a determining figure for the fate of this world and able to influence the surrounding environment on a whim. To me, this marks him as more Primeval. 

        Given that he simply taught about salvation from this world into some other realm that supposedly exists, that would mean that his teachings aren’t existentially-independent and therefore, I’m not so sure we can say they were Primordial. They’re only independent from this world and its Natural Order. It’s the Order of this world specifically that he seemed to consider corrupt. 

        If so, then where would I place Jesus in the Primeval portion? Slight, Moderate, Extreme etc.? Well, that’s hard to judge because it’s unclear as to what Jesus meant when referred to “the world.” Did he just mean planet Earth? This cosmos? The entirety of this space-time? 

        There’s a verse in the Bible where Jesus says he has other sheep in other sheep-pen who will also follow his voice. If you want to really get conspiratorial about this, that could mean anything from Christians living on other planets to followers of Christ existing in other Universes. 

        Let’s give Jesus the highest benefit-of-the-doubt and say that these other sheep-pen are other Universes. This invites a multiverse scheme. If we assume this is the case (which is a BIG assumption on my part) then Jesus didn’t just teach about saving people from this planet or even this Universe. By “the world,” he would’ve been referring to an entire multiverse. 

        Therefore, he was condemning the corruption of an entire (possibly infinite) bubble of space-time that he referred to as “the world.” Again, I don’t think that would mean existence as a whole because we’ve already made a large assumption to stretch his teachings out to this scale and even if this is what he actually intended, he still seemed to teach about an existent form of salvation. Not an existentially-independent salvation like is found in the Primordial. 

        Taking this assumption, I would say that Jesus was Moderately Primeval. So, I would place Jesus extremely far to “the right” (the top, in this spectrum’s case) but not as far to the right as Ethan Kahn. 

        Even if you scale the teachings of Jesus up as much as possible to account for any linguistic-limits he may have had (e.g. words meaning Universe, multiverse, dimension, and infinity wouldn’t have been common in his time) I still find Ethan’s exclusive teachings to be more outright and explicit in how radically far they’re intended to go. 

        With that said, there are some very notable similarities shared between the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Bible and Ethan’s exclusive set of teachings. I may analyze these similarities in a future post. 

        In summary of this post, remember that advancement doesn’t entirely correlate to the spectrum. Matt Kahn is - I would say - more advanced than extreme Progressives like Leo Gura and Connor Murphy in many ways. Peter Ralston is more advanced than Wim Hof (who’s even further to the right) in some ways. 

        However, there’s still somewhat of a correlation in that complexity advances further to the left (and to the right once you pass Primitive) and effectivity advances further to the right. 

        With that said, the teachers are more likely to be more advanced as you move further out from the center of the spectrum. Primeval & Primordial are the exception in that they’re so foundational and primary that they’re pretty much more advanced Universally (in every case rather than just some). That’s because both those give you so much freedom of choice that there’s no reason you should be less advanced unless you choose to be. 

        But as for every other portion of the spectrum, it’s only the likelihood of advancement that increases. Futuristic forms of spirituality are more likely to be more advanced than Conservative spiritual teachings but it’s still possible for a Conservative to out-do a Futurist. For example, picture if there were some form of zen meditation that gave rise to a state more advanced than physical God-consciousness. 

        I find it to make sense that the likelihood increases outwardly considering that the four outermost teachers on here (Leo Gura, Connor Murphy, Wim Hof, & Ethan Kahn) are in many ways, the more advanced half. 

        Kahn, Murphy, and Gura definitely have the broadest teachings (and I would say, 1st then 2nd and 3rd in that order). This doesn’t say anything of their validity but simply that they’re the most inclusive and furthest-reaching. 

        I’ll finish by listing each of the strong-points for these teachers and their teachings: 

Connor Murphy: the fastest-advancing (his way is the fastest to reaching Enlightenment)

Ethan Kahn: the broadest, the most complex, the most elegant, the most difficult-to-understand, the most advanced, the most effective, the most freeing, the most exciting, the most intense/powerful/compelling

Leo Gura: the most “bang-for-your-buck” (the best ratio between advanced and practical) 

Matt Kahn: the most balanced, the most unbiased, the most nurturing 

Peter Ralston: the most traditional, the most focused/concentrated, the most hardcore, the most unconditional (teachings can be applied regardless of your state or condition more than the others) 

Sadhguru: the most accessible, the most relevant, the most applicable 

Teal Swan: the most empathetic, the most inspiring 

Wim Hof: the most practical