Spiritual Spectrum
Spiritual Spectrum
Spectrums are a useful tool for gauging and comparing all sorts of different vantage points within any given field. Whether it be for studying politics, science, philosophy, religion etc. they can layout the similarities, differences, & levels of proximity between various schools of thought. Observations can be made about where each one stands on any specific issue or general topic within the respective field that’s being put under analysis.
No doubt, many people have heard politics being discussed across the range of a familiar spectrum (the Conservative-Progressive spectrum). What many aren’t aware of is that this Conservative-Progressive spectrum is actually derived from a more fundamental study than that of politics.
Sure, it can be and has been used in the study of politics yet, it can also be used to compare the different lines of thought found in other fields such as philosophy and religion. You can have Conservative or Progressive Christians just like there’s Conservative & Progressive political parties. Evangelicals & Christian mystics are good examples of the former while Republicans and Democrats are for the latter (at least, if you live in the United States. Other countries have their own Conservative & Progressive political parties).
This is not to say that a Conservative religious adherent such as an Evangelical Christian will always adhere to a Conservative political group like the Republican party. People are much more diverse and multi-layered than that. One individual alone could be Conservative in their religious beliefs while simultaneously being a Progressive in their political leanings with a more Moderate philosophical perspective thrown in. Leaning one way within a specific field or on a specific issue doesn’t automatically imply that you lean that same way with regards to another.
Since this Conservative-Progressive spectrum can be so independently applied to areas outside of politics, it makes sense to think that it’s really fundamental enough to chart practically every ideological field. This got me thinking...I’ve never seen it rigorously applied to spirituality...
I myself have been intrigued by various spiritual topics since my late teens and have - for many years - loved exploring the diverse array of teachings presented by a multitude of different spiritual paths and teachers. Over the course of my time studying these spiritual teachings, I came to realize how varietal of a field spirituality really is. To me, it seems that it holds just as much diversity as - if not more than - any other field.
People often love to dissolve the disagreements between various spiritual gurus by exclaiming that, “they’re ultimately just talking about the same thing just with different words and pointers.” I personally think this is very remote from the obvious truth. On a superficial surface-level, it’s easy to make such an exclamation and sweep all disagreements under the proverbial rug. However, the more in-depth you go with each set of teachings, it becomes increasingly undeniable just how divergent and even incompatible each brand of spirituality is from many of the others.
Now it’s still true that there are many teachers and teachings that are in agreement with one another. Sometimes a feud between two gurus really is just a matter of word-choice. I just want to make it clear that this isn’t always the case and therefore, can’t be so easily used as an “end-all conflict” solution. Nor do I think that we should want to use it as such. The diversity is part of the beauty and I like to think that each brand of spirituality could be referencing unique facets of truth. We don’t need to dissolve their differences for all of them to possibly be valid in their own respects.
However, I’m not using this blog for the purpose of analyzing the amount of validity found in each brand of spirituality. My intention is to layout an ideological spectrum for spirituality as has been done with politics, philosophy, religion, & other fields. I’ll do this first by comparing a sample of teachers that I’ve studied closely.
Later on, I may create a spectrum for the comparison of various spiritual philosophies (e.g. Theosophy, Nonduality, Wicca etc.), or communities (the New Age movement, Osho’s cult following, the Pythagoreans etc.), or even channeled entities (the Ashtar Command, the Great White Brotherhood, the Council of Nine etc.) or maybe even psychedelics (DMT, LSD, 5-MeO-DMT etc.). There’s a plethora of ways to compare and contrast different spiritual teachings but in this first post, I’m simply going to do it through the comparison of teacher-figures.
I’ve decided to start with the 8 teachers whose work I’ve studied the most closely so far. All of them are contemporary teachers but that’s simply because I began my exploration of spirituality through contemporary sites as YouTube, personal blogs, and online forums. I’ve digested the works of some older teachers as well but not yet enough for them to be the focal point of this post. I will discuss a couple here in addition to my contemporary sample but for the most part, they’ll have to be saved for later.
I’ll be applying the Conservative-Progressive ideological spectrum to my analysis of these eight teachers. Before I unveil and discuss this in detail, there’s a couple extremist extensions to the ideological spectrum that need to be explained...
Conservatives aren’t the end of the spectrum nor are Progressives the other end. If they were, it would be too limited. How would you account for ultraconservative or ultraprogressive ideologies? Extensions can be and have been made to account for these more extreme outer portions of the spectrum.
On the ultraprogressive end, we have Futuristic. To be Futuristic is to be ahead of your time. Progressives push the boundaries of any given modern era but they’re still relevant to their time-frame. If you’re Futuristic, then you’re not going to be considered very relevant or practical to the time in which you live. Your ideas will not only be considered radical or cutting-edge but unverified or even unverifiable. Your time-frame simply has no use for you and your ideas.
Over on the ultraconservative side of the spectrum, you’ll find Barbaric systems of thought. Before any Conservative political adherents feel this as a negative bias towards their political leanings, let me explain. The term “Barbaric” is much more neutralized than you may think and it even possesses many positives.
Barbaric ideologies are simply those that are/were in place prior to the establishment of any traditional systems. Think about it, to be Conservative is to Conserve the traditions of a specific field. For example, the freedoms entailed by the United States Constitution are traditional American values that were established by that Constitution. Conservatives seek to Conserve those values.
So if Conservatives seek to Conserve the traditional values of a given system, then it only makes sense that - if you tend further in that direction - you’ll reach a time-frame before those traditions were even established.
Dial-back every traditional set of values to its pre-conception and you’ll uncover a time in which there were no large institutions, complex laws, or systems of government. This is a pre-civilizational era of loose systems and increased individual freedom. In other words, it’s Barbaric in nature. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s bad or incorrect. It just implies that there’s no strict set of values in place and therefore, people hold more social freedom to indulge in whatever they wish (for better or for worse).
Let’s put it this way, a Barbaric “civilization” of corrupt unsophisticated people would be far more dangerous and overall, far worse than any modernized one. On the other hand, a Barbaric land of morally-upright and intelligently-skillful people could arguably fare better than any advanced system of governance could ever guide them to.
Though I should state that the amount to which they would be better off would depend on just how morally-upright and intelligent they are. A hypothetical loose civilization of Barbarians that is moral, skillful, and intelligent enough could fare better and live more luxuriously than citizens of a modern society. Granted, they would have to be extremely advanced individuals to pull off such a feat. So much so that this hypothetical scenario tends more towards the realm of science-fiction. However, my point is merely that it’s imaginably possible for a Barbaric system to be better or even more advanced than a complex Progressive one.
So the term “Barbaric” here doesn’t necessarily mean violent, unadvanced, or unsophisticated. It holds a more neutral meaning as opposed to its typical negative connotation. Something that’s Barbaric could actually be very advanced as imagined in our hypothetical scenario of an undeveloped civilization that still lives better than a developed civilization supported by a complex infrastructure. Such an advanced Barbaric system would be any Libertarian’s utopia (something that I think Conservatives should rightfully be proud of).
So there’s no need for political Conservatives to see it as bad that their ideology tends toward the Barbaric side of the spectrum. First of all, Barbaric is still very different than Conservative and secondly, tending towards the Barbaric side doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re less advanced.
Likewise, the fact that Progressives tend towards the Futuristic end doesn’t automatically entail that they’re more advanced. More advanced in complexity, infrastructure, and technology? Sure. But more advanced in ingenuity, survival, freedom, satisfaction, or individual-ability to create whatever makes you happy? Not necessarily. That gauge is an independent variable of this spectrum. Futuristic civilizations with advanced technology and infrastructure could still be very powerless, downtrodden, & dystopian while Barbarians with very advanced ingenuity and ability could be abundantly powerful and healthy.
Now that you see how the Progressives aren’t being favored and the Conservatives aren’t falling prey to negative bias, let’s continue. Futuristic ideologies are too complex and nuanced relative to their time so as to be impractical to it. Barbaric ideologies are pre-establishment. There’s one more common extension to the ultraconservative side of the spectrum. Primitive.
To be Primitive is to not even belong to a loose ideological system or culture. It’s essentially, culturally-independent. The individual is the sole ruler and benefactor of his/her/its own system. They live in their natural environment without any extra-personal input (Not even from a loose social system that’s found in the Barbaric). Basically, the individual is the sole value. There’s no traditional set of Conservative values nor even any loose set of Barbaric social values.
Now that you understand enough about the ideological Conservative-Progressive spectrum, let’s finally use it to analyze spirituality...
You’re immediately going to have a bunch of questions based on just looking at this spectrum at first glance. Don’t worry...I’ll get around to answering each of them.
It’s easiest if we start in the middle of the spectrum and work our way out step-by-step with each teacher. So let’s begin with the man at dead center, Matt Kahn.
He neither favors the heart nor the mind over the other; he neither demonizes the ego nor enshrines it; he neither advocates for or against psychedelic-usage in spiritual practice etc. you get the idea. He’s very moderate simply because he doesn’t play a game of favorites.
Whereas most gurus teach you to dissolve the ego and its needs/wants, Matt Kahn approaches it from an angle of nourishment. For example, you cannot expect an individual to embody any egoless state such as Universal Oneness without first giving closure to the attention it seeks. He refers to this as nurturing the Inner Child. Hungry children aren’t satisfied through being ignored but by being fed first. Satisfy the hunger before dissolving it.
Once an individual has fed their Inner Child, they will feel more fulfilled and ready to help “feed” others. An analogy that comes to mind each time I hear this teaching is that of oxygen masks on an airplane. Think about what the flight attendants always direct you to do in any emergency situation: secure your mask before helping any children or disabled personnel.
Matt Kahn is essentially telling you that it’s healthier to nurture your individual egoic needs before pursuing a more selfless path. In fact, this nourishment will align your heart and mind (both of which Matt Kahn considers important) which will bring about what he calls an Emotional Oneness. This is basically an experience of Oneness on an individual level that prepares you for broader Nondualistic states such as Universal Oneness.
Therefore, according to Matt, rather than the ego being a nuisance that gets in the way of spiritual and emotional progress, it’s an integral entity to the pursuit of conscious advancement. Yet, Matt still doesn’t fall into favoring the ego despite the importance he envisions within it. Selfless alignment with others still holds an ultimate position. This demonstrates his moderation.
He also moves along the middle-path within the debate over whether psychedelics are a helpful or harmful spiritual tool. I personally have never heard him either advocate for or against psychedelics in spiritual practice. I would imagine that, if posed with a question on the subject matter, he would consider them capable of providing Awakenings and certain facets of Enlightenment while saying that there’s more facets which they’re incapable of providing on their own.
Matt Kahn is also more of a New Ager than the other teachers in my sample (with the exception of Teal Swan). Many New Agers are Spiritually Moderate. This is because, unlike Spiritual Conservatives which we’ll discuss later, Spiritual Moderates don’t consider exploration of states to be a distraction or obstacle to Awakening.
Astral projection, inter-dimensional entities, alien visitations etc. are all not only useful in the eventual development of Enlightenment but can even directly provide Awakening to the individual who’s experiencing them. In other words, Enlightenment isn’t only possible to attain by emptying your mind in meditation while sitting under a Bodhi Tree. It’s also possible to become Enlightened through close personal interactions with inter-dimensional beings from...let’s say...the Ashtar Command.
Since the large majority of New Agers tend to consider these more other-worldly methods valuable, most of them are Spiritually Moderate. The Moderates are - as I’ve said - going to see value in many of the experiences and states that the Conservatives consider to be distractions.
However, Moderates agree with Conservatives in that they think Enlightenment is still possible to attain sober. Any type of external aid such as psychedelic-usage isn’t seen as necessary. Moderates don’t agree that they’re a hindrance but they do agree that they’re never necessary. This is where the Spiritual Progressives come in.
Those who are Spiritually Progressive make many more nuances and distinctions with the topic of Enlightenment than Conservatives or Moderates do. This is because their view of Enlightenment is less binary and more relativistic.
With Conservatives, it’s, “you’re either Awakened or you’re not” (e.g. you’ve either dropped all states or you haven’t). There’s only Enlightenment. There aren’t any multiple stages or higher levels of Enlightenment.
For Moderates, there usually are multiple stages or levels of Enlightenment. However, it’s typically some random arbitrary number like seven or twelve or thirty-three. You know...numbers that leave you thinking, “x? Why not x + 1? Why would it just stop at x?” For example, Adi Da taught that there were seven levels of Awakening. Why is seven the number? Can’t there be an eighth level or even, a ninth?
Such arbitrary gaps are found within Spiritually Moderate teachings for a reason. They’re not nearly as nuanced as Spiritually Progressive teachings. For Spiritual Progressives, the number of Enlightenment levels is usually less arbitrary and more indefinite or relativistic.
According to a Spiritual Progressive, there may be hundreds of levels of Awakening or even thousands. Maybe even infinitely many! Spiritually Progressive teachers typically don’t state one particular number with certainty. It’s more vague and grey with more nuances. Spiritually Conservative definitions of Enlightenment, on the other hand, are very black-&-white. Spiritually Moderate definitions aren’t as black-&-white as them but they’re still not even remotely as nuanced as more Spiritually Progressive definitions.
The fact that the Progressives see so many more levels and facets within the realm of Enlightenment is the very reason why they commonly advocate for external spiritual aids or tools like psychedelics.
Let’s put it this way...if there’s only one level of Enlightenment and all you have to do is “empty your cup” to attain it (like the Conservatives say), then it’s very feasible for a human being to become Enlightened without any external aid.
If there’s multiple levels (like the Moderates claim) and many of these are more than just “emptying your cup,” then it’s not as simple anymore. However, there’s still probably only like...nine levels overall. So it should still be possible for sober human consciousness to reach them all.
But...if there’s hundreds or thousands or some indefinitely-high number of stages, then the heights of Enlightenment must soar skyward out-of-sight. It’s expected that many of those towering levels are utterly beyond the scope of human comprehension. Attaining them with your sober mind becomes unrealistic and maybe even laughable (I do notice that a lot of Spiritual Progressives literally laugh at the notion of attaining certain levels of Enlightenment sober).
Due to this inclusion of inhuman stages of Awakening within their complex frame-work, Spiritual Progressives tend to largely advocate for psychedelic-usage as a pivotal piece of spiritual practice. If not psychedelics than some other external, physical, or chemical method by which to raise your consciousness.
With this, I introduce you to Leo Gura. He’s extremely Progressive in fact, easily one of the most Progressive spiritual teachers out there. If there’s ever been a figure born for the purpose of kickstarting a Second Psychedelic Revolution, it’s this guy. Honestly, I think he actually believes this is his life purpose. He drops constant “Easter Eggs” about it in his videos.
Gura is someone who I would consider to have mystical insights that are no less profound than any other Awakened master that’s out there. A lot of them appear to be even deeper and Gura additionally manages to intellectualize these shockingly deep levels of reality.
He brings an almost scientific method to the field of spirituality which is very Progressive in its own right, given that Conservatives constantly tell you to drop knowledge and the intellect. Gura still teaches this Conservative emptiness to a large extent but his flavor of heavily contemplative & scientific spirituality is still enough to push him very far to “the left.”
Leo is a great example of a Progressive who doesn’t place any hard cap on the number of stages of Enlightenment or consciousness. He’s stated on his online forum that there may be hundreds or thousands of levels of Awakening and that he’s additionally open to their being infinitely many (note, I haven’t been citing sources in this post but this blog is mainly just me “getting my thoughts on paper.” The sources are very numerous and I’d rather save them for a later post so as to not bog-down this reading).
Due to Leo’s complex map of consciousness in which there are indefinitely-high levels of consciousness, he considers it silly and foolish to think that any human individual could ever become “Fully Enlightened” without additional support.
This additional support, according to Leo, could take the form of psychedelics or even genetics. That’s right, Leo has grounded the Absolute nature of reality down within the relative so much that he considers even biological genetics to be influential in determining one’s capability to Awaken (another very Progressive and scientific standpoint within the field of spirituality). Hardly any other teachers ground spirituality in the relativistic aspects of reality that much.
According to Gura, genetics can be so influential that lacking spiritually-inclined genes could handicap an individual from ever attaining Enlightenment to any significant extent. After all, genetics keeps you from being able to turn your head backwards without breaking your neck, so why can’t it bar you from being a Buddha?
It’s certainly a difficult argument to refute and maybe there is deep truth to Gura’s thoughts. Anyhow, this type of thinking in Gura leads him to the conclusion that there are such high levels of Awakening that your hardware (your biology) simply cannot fathom that degree of software.
The only way to combat any physical handicap is to bring in additional support. In the case of sick, injured, & elderly people it may be a wheelchair or cane to help them move but in the case of consciousness, it’s psychedelics to help you Awaken.
Leo believes that we’ll never be able to significantly Awaken the World without psychedelic-usage becoming a common educated practice. In his mind, ordinary people are simply too low-conscious and many facets of Enlightenment simply too high-conscious for the gap to ever be realistically closed without further help.
For this very reason, he fervently pushes for psychedelic adoption in spiritual practice. So much so that as of fairly recently, psychedelic-usage has become the main practice that he advocates for in the field. Meditation? Too limited. Transmissions? Not reliable enough. Yoga? Not hardcore enough.
This again, is what makes Leo a Progressive in this field. He’s pushing against the comfort zone of a time-frame in which many teachers still demonize or discount psychedelics. However, this isn’t the only way to be a Progressive. So long as you’re advocating for any up-and-coming method or introducing new ones that are practical and usable to people in your time, you can be considered Progressive.
This is mainly why I placed Teal Swan in-between Moderate & Progressive. She’s very New Agey and holds a lot of other similarities to many other Spiritually Moderate teachers yet she also diverges from them in some of her teachings.
Her take on the Law of Attraction, for example, introduces some new facets that aren’t being shared by others who teach this Law. This is actually where her teachings get very intriguing...
According to Swan, most of our collective species has become conscious enough about the goods and not-so-goods of the Law of Attraction that we’re in the process of consciously desiring a new Law into existence. Swan teaches that this will literally create a new time-space reality in which this new Law (rather than the Law of Attraction) is in play.
This is obviously more Progressive than your typical New Age set of teachings. However, it still holds many similarities to the New Age movement in that there’s taught to be a future Mass Awakening and cosmic change (literally, a New Age).
Teachers who are - on the whole - more Spiritually Progressive don’t focus their teachings around just one new age. This isn’t relativistic enough for the Progressives because, what about the teachings of other Ages? What of the next age after this New Age that Teal speaks of? What of the Old Age that was in place before the Law of Attraction? What of the age before that and before that and before that etc.?
The notion of infinity is very popular amongst Spiritual Progressives and so, they like to reach into as many ages of the eternal past and the never-ending future as they can so as to pull their most valuable gems of insight. The insights of the next age aren’t nearly as important as the insights that all of the ages share.
For this reason, I still wouldn’t mark Teal Swan as a Progressive though she is much more Progressive than Moderate. She’s safely couched in-between the two as a Moderate-Progressive (note, this is different than Moderately Progressive in which they would be placed in the middle of the Progressive spectrum).
Let’s again move back over to “the left” and take a look at it’s more extreme aspects before analyzing “the right.” It comes as no surprise that I’ve marked Leo Gura as extremely Progressive but...who is that...who is that person that I’ve placed slightly ahead of Leo? Is that...Connor Murphy? Why yes, it is. Let me explain...
While Connor’s had a presence on YouTube for years now, his role as a spiritual teacher has only developed within the past year of this blog’s writing. He’s been called “the new guy on the block.” What an addition to the block he is...
As of late, he’s been referencing Leo in some of his videos. Watching how he engages and responds to Leo’s teachings has been very useful in helping me to compare and locate his place on the spectrum.
In one video, Connor told Leo (not directly but by calling him out in the video) that God-consciousness can be taken further than what he’s taught. God-consciousness is a facet of Enlightenment where you realize Oneness with God. Some people take this to mean that You are literally God while others go the much more sensible route of it meaning that God is fully you but you’re not fully God. Leo is an example of one who interprets it as the former.
Connor responded to Leo by stating that realizing yourself as God in the mind (as Gura teaches) isn’t the end of Awakening or even the end of the facet of it known as God-consciousness. According to Murphy, God-consciousness can be taken so much further to the point where you physically become God in a material sense.
This not only adds an additional nuance of materialistic-realism not found in Gura’s teachings but a whole other set of more extreme levels to God-consciousness. So then why have I placed him only slightly above Leo Gura?
Well, that’s because later in that very same video he told Leo that he could realize himself as a materialistic God right now. This implies that the state which Connor is referring to isn’t actually accompanied by any physical changes such as physically transforming into a God before people’s very eyes (as his audience most likely assumed he had meant at the outset).
Therefore, Connor’s brand of God-consciousness really isn’t all that different from Leo’s. It just has an extra nuance of materialism thrown in there. Like Leo’s type of God-consciousness, Connor’s can still be realized with a simple shift in awareness. It’s still more of a realization than a physical transformation.
Since what Connor is teaching can still be realized at a human level, it’s not anything impractical or out-of-reach. If he were teaching a form of God-consciousness where you physically become a God, then that would be impractical, at least to our current society. After all, we don’t have any technology or psychedelics or styles of Yoga that are powerful enough to catalyze such a divine transformation.
Therefore, Connor’s teaching is still practical and places him safely in the Progressive realm while a teaching about literal physical God-Transformation would most certainly jump the line of practicality. It would be too far ahead of our current civilization’s capabilities to be anything more than invaluable theory to any audience watching today. Yet, there is a teacher who claims to have experience with such Futuristic levels of spirituality. Let’s move on down to that extremity of the diagram...
Ethan Kahn is without a doubt, the most intriguing case on this spectrum. He immediately strikes attention being both crowned at the tippy-top and flat on the dead bottom.
Being more of an up-and-coming teacher, he doesn’t have an already-large audience like the other contemporary teachers on this list do. One possible exception to that would be Peter Ralston who’s the only other teacher on here with less than a million views. Yet even Ralston is well-known in the Nondual community with notable works of his being published. Ethan Kahn is relatively unknown as of the writing of this blog.
I only found his work through a friend who suggested that I listen to him. Now I already dig around for smaller YouTube channels with less-known spiritual content here and there but those types of channels are still conformed to my online personal feed. I could have only found Ethan through referral.
What I must say is that, based on my study of other lesser-known teachers, I’ve found that many of them are still largely teaching the same stuff that you hear from the bigger ones. It’s a very “as above, so below” type of scenario. Then again, that could just be due to the algorithms of my personal online feed. Either way, Ethan Kahn is the only lesser-known teacher that I found worth mentioning and including within this sample primarily because he’s such an outstanding case.
I’ll start by explaining what places him so far on the ultraprogressive side of the spectrum before going over the various teachers on “the right” to eventually reach the reason for Ethan simultaneously being so far over there.
Ethan teaches about aspects of reality and Enlightenment that are so radical, I’m not even sure we’ll ever have a way to verify or unverify them. Remember the physical God-consciousness that I just talked about? For Ethan, this is not only a very real possibility but a very real actuality which he has direct experience with.
This highlights exactly what I mean. Imagine the level of infrastructure and technological development our civilization would need to have in place before anyone could ever even get a taste of physical Godhood (something that Ethan experiences 24/7 in addition to his life here).
The capabilities of such a civilization would most likely go beyond anything in our Sci-Fi stories. How advanced would chemistry have to be in order to create psychedelics or other chemical products that are capable of physically transforming you in your experience into a God?
I don’t even think they’d be psychedelics anymore. They’d be some entirely new type of chemical product. It might not even come in the form of small tabs to place on your tongue and ingest. It could be an entire machine with all sorts of tubes and wires hooked up to a vat that feeds the chemical compound into all the physical organs of the individual.
What if providing it to an individual like that in the middle of their life isn’t capitalizing on it enough? What if we would have to genetically-modify unborn fetuses for countless generations before finally getting to a point when their bodies and internal psyches would be capable of undergoing and withstanding such a vast transformation?
We would first have to verify if the correlation Leo makes between spirituality and genetics is true then, if it is, locate the genes that are most-influential to spiritual-inclination then, invent a way to tweak those genes and make them more spiritually-inclined and then, find ways to advance this process astronomically-further over God knows how many generations before a successful baby is finally born. We would then place that gem of humanity into the vat and only then, will another member of humankind have gotten a taste of what Ethan claims to have access to every single moment of life.
See what I mean? Wildly Futuristic. Teaching about such facets of spirituality will only ever have tangible value if it’s possible to reach such astronomical-levels of advancement as a civilization and actually make that possibility a reality. Ethan most assuredly has a Futuristic form of spirituality.
Maybe that’s why he’s so chill? Gee...if I were experiencing what it’s like to be a physically infinite God saving countless realities from suffering, I would be as zen and stress-free as him too!
He’s also taught about dimensions below 0-D which not only hold mathematical and scientific value but spiritual value as well. Each dimension, according to Ethan, doesn’t just present differing variations of spatiality but also consciousness. For example, 2-D consciousness is radically different than 3-D consciousness and therefore, 2-D Enlightenment presents its own values that’ll never be found within any type of 3-D Enlightenment.
This is enormously abstract. I don’t even think abstract is the right term since we can imagine abstract. How in the hell do you imagine the second dimension, let alone the first, let alone the zeroth?
I haven’t even heard a legitimate description of a 2-D experience on psychedelics! So even the tools of the Progressives are nowhere close to making 2-D Enlightenment a practical phenomenon! As for the dimensions supposedly below 0-D, those aren’t even mathematically verifiable! So they’re not even verifiable in the abstract Lol (note, that’s the only place in this entire blog where I’ve written “Lol” because Ethan’s teachings are that excitingly fantastical and profound).
So Ethan speaking of these lower-dimensions (especially the sub-zero dimensions) is equivalent to Democritus spouting germ theory back in Ancient Greece 2,300 years before it became scientifically proven. His ancient Greek contemporaries had no microscopes to even see whether or not germs existed. Even if they had the microscopes way back then, they still would’ve had no way to test what they do. Even if they had that, they still wouldn’t necessarily have had any way to make practical use of the germs and what they do (for example, they would’ve had no anti-bacterial products).
Similarly, even if Ethan is right, we don’t have “the microscopes” to verify or unverify him. Nor do we have the toolkit necessary to test how these dimensions function, even if they’re really there. Furthermore, we don’t have any technology or products that would allow us to make practical use of these lower dimensions. He’s far ahead of the current on three levels.
Like or dislike the guy. Believe him or don’t believe him but his teachings are Insanely Futuristic. Whether he’s right or wrong, it’s going to take an incomprehensible amount of time before either outcome is proven (if ever).
Ethan once told a story about how he personally met with Leo Gura who considered him too meta and impractical to find the value that lies within his teachings (even though Leo himself was confident that it was there). With this spectrum in context, it now makes sense as to why: Kahn is too progressive, even for the extremely progressive Gura.
Leo’s not the only person who’s noticed how inaccessible his teachings are.
What’s really astounding is that I’ve talked to Ethan Kahn personally and what I can say after a few in-depth conversations with him is that his videos are very watered-down and stripped-of-detail compared to the fullness of his teachings.
Listening to more of the complexities and nuances behind his public-exclamation about the infinite nature of reality solidified him as an extremely Futuristic teacher for me. Honestly, I would go further than that.
Based on my spectrum, I would consider anyone who’s a few years ahead of the practicality of their time to be very slightly Futuristic. Anyone who’s a few decades ahead would be slightly so (instead of very slightly). Someone who’s around a century ahead would be considered Moderately Futuristic. It would take an individual being a few centuries ahead for me to consider them very Futuristic. A thousand years or so ahead and I would count them as extremely Futuristic.
Yet, I don’t even think a few millennia of constant spiritual and technological progression would be enough to ever prove or disprove or experience some of what Ethan talks about. If it takes an indefinite amount of time ahead for an individual to be made practical, I would go so far as to say they’re radically Futuristic.
Although, I still wouldn’t even place Ethan there. His whole teaching - the core message of his Everything Explained channel - is that reality is so infinite that the only things that are impossible are those that would limit it. I’ve never heard any other teacher who has this limitless of a worldview. No other mystic or spiritual guru is going to tell you that fictional characters exist and more so, that they’re experiencing them and even gaining high spiritual value from those experiences.
With that said, I don’t even think it’s proper to hold Ethan Kahn at a radically Futuristic position. His teachings will always be relevant and even, ahead of the times. This is because, no matter how much of reality we explore, Ethan’s teachings will always be hanging over our heads.
If we ever find what we interpret to be an end to reality, his teachings will keep us wondering, “maybe it’s not the end. Maybe there’s still more.” On the contrary, if we ever come to think of reality as infinite and accept that, Ethan Kahn’s teachings will still constantly be ahead, reminding us of how much more infinite reality gets than whatever we would already know in any given generation.
This is precisely why I’ve placed Ethan at the furthest extremity of the spectrum. He’s eternally ahead of the times. Perpetually Futuristic.
With him, there’s always more nuances and complexities to explore. In Progressive spirituality, there’s many shades of grey but, in Ethan’s ultraprogressive spirituality, you get lost in the shades of grey never to find a way out.
So on this side of the purple center, you have Teal Swan who is bluish-purple; Leo Gura and Connor Murphy who are blue; and Ethan Kahn who’s bright blue. Like...Infinite Ocean blue.
With that, we’ve finished the entire Progressive side of the spectrum. So let’s finally begin on the Conservative side.
(Continued in Part II)
Comments
Post a Comment