The stages of spiritual knowledge

My take on the stages of spiritual knowledge from my anecdotal evidence.

Note, some people go through these stages faster than others, some may skip stages, some may combine them, and some may do them in a different order, or even regress. For some this process is tumultuous, for others, it's moderate. I don't think God punishes us for not following a set time frame, or order, but I do know that God appreciates one's effort to attain it, consciously or subconsciously.

Stage 1 (Childhood) - The default state of being connected to God, in which, society and community either educates us to deviate from, or strengthen.

Stage 2 (The Rebellion) - The period in which hedonism becomes important. Often defined by sex, drugs, traveling, dating, partying, accumulating wealth, "keeping up with the Joneses". One is often in competition during this phase.

Stage 3 (Opening consciousness) - The period of inner exploration, questioning, sorting out. One may have a sudden stirring interest in religion(s), history, metaphysics, conspiracies, or fighting for a cause.

Stage 4 (The Father/Mother as the Sacred Child) - This is the final stage, in which the knowledge from all previous stages get affirmed, yet become secondary to everyday life matters, both mundane and important. Also, the Fatherly and Motherly instinct takes over, even if one chooses not to have children. One often finds the serendipitous feeling of opening their consciousness in everyday activities. They become hardwired into the mind, accepted and appreciated without much overt excitement. Despite the lack of overt enthusiasm, the potency is just as powerful, or more. An activity such as drinking a cup of coffee becomes an affirmation of one's connection to God, and get's added into one's bank of accumulated wisdom. One becomes like a child again. If you've ever spent time around elderly people, you can feel their level of spiritual mastery shining brightly like the sun.

Peace and hope you found something interesting from this small write-up.

Love has 3 parts to it: affection, trust, respect.

Respect is the foundation of love. One can respect someone and not love them. I differ from the philosophy of "you have to earn my respect". I respect everyone by default. People may take actions to lose respect, but it's always there. For instance, I respect the US justice system, regardless of whether I consider the laws just or not. I respect it because there are legitimate and very real consequences for not adhering to it. 

Trust is also default, but its more limited in scope, and it requires going through more doors to unpack. One can trust someone in the small capacity they share, such as in business, one can trust that a colleague will finish their work, but it may not extend past the business paradigm. 

Affection, however is the aspect most associated with our modern understanding of love. Affection comes in many forms, romantic affection, affection from a family member, affection from a friend, or just emotional affection overall. I carry emotional affection for everyone by default, that's the essence of empathy, but it's shown and used sparingly. For me to transcend default affection towards someone requires a strong showing and feeling of respect and trust that motivates me to move forward. 

Love isn't all hugs and kisses or hallmark cards, love is also the feeling of working together towards a common goal for the goodwill of the whole. 

Love

Religion Vs Science?

I got my issues with Religion, but very few people have the audacity to criticize Science.  Science has given us most the tools to kill each other nd tools to kill ones own self. Science also hasn't figured out a way to bring equity to the World either. We haven't figured out how to not destroy our own selves, and how to not destroy the environment we live it Am I right or am I wrong? 

What if someone saw paranormal apparitions when they spoke names of Prophets from religious books? - "that person would have a mental illness" is the quite insulting response I would expect from some, based upon that statement being oft repeated by those who put down religion. It's interesting how we root for characters in mythology who see and feel paranormal things, and how we get frustrated when in the movie some authority thinks they're crazy.

There are so many far-out, theoretical scientific models that can't be proven tangibly, but one believes in them enough to create a model for it right? This is an example of people putting their time and effort into something that "doesn't exist". Shouldn't they also have a mental illness?

The God particle conundrum. The pursuit to prove something's nonexistence. To me nonexistence means that its not even a thought in your mind, or the mind of anyone else, let alone millions of people. It doesn't exist. There's no time to devote for it, no time to prove or disprove it, because that time doesn't even exist. Nothing can come out of nonexistence.

Maybe science isn't considered a way to live one's life, but it often gets equated as the opposite of religion, when I see it as a method of religion. I'm sure the reason we were given these inquisitive minds is to use them and to expand them, to question everything, but to also feel how it feels to be a part of something that is unquestionable to many other people. Considering ALL the options is also Science. To manifest that unquestionable feeling into tangible feelings of fullness and wholeness, (however brief or sustained they may be), is an amazing, marvelous pursuit. Religion ain't going nowhere. It will adapt with Science, take new forms, but the fundamentals will remain.

I love science! I believe we need some scientific consensus on universal applicable ideas of morality. I also love religion. I've said it before, I'll say it again, religion, in it's many criticisms and misuses, at the very least tries to address those universal ideas. Religion uses the scientific method of providing parables, stories, proverbs and rules as variables in a model of good or bad behavior. Models are very important in science. Maybe Science with capital "S" will make a more universal version, that many people adhere to, but then will that be a Religion?

Revolutionary

A revolutionary essentially opposes the dominant culture.

To be a potent revolutionary, your belief must be so powerful, you sacrifice the trappings of the culture you are revolting against. Only then will your potency be shown to those who you surround yourself with.