I can’t help but think that thought, words and messages create those same realities which were “accessed” by Steiner in “Akashic records” and thus held truth for him, because he was impressed by the totality of words. He says himself

“If we let the Pauline Epistles work upon us, we have finally something which, through its extraordinary simplicity and through the deeply penetrating quality of the words and sentences, makes a most significant impression. But this is so only because Paul, through his own initiation, had worked his way up to that simplicity which is not the starting-point of what is true, but the consequence, the goal. If we wish to penetrate into what Paul was able finally to express in wonderful, monumental, simple words concerning the Christ-Being, we must come nearer to an understanding of human nature, for whose further development on Earth the Christ-Impulse came. Let us therefore consider what we already know concerning human nature, as shown through occult sight.” (Steiner, 1912)

In spiritual literature, we can encounter the concept of a “multivariant universe” (Zeland, 1999), which posits that reality is composed of numerous valid perspectives shaped by individual experiences. This framework invites us to move beyond the simplistic ideas of right and wrong, acknowledging that truth can be subjective and relative to one’s worldview. Cognitive science explains how our brains construct our perception of reality. Our experiences are filtered through our senses, interpreted by our cognitive schemes, and influenced by our emotions and past experiences (see: Eagleman, D. (2015). The Brain: The Story of You. Pantheon). This highlights the subjective aspect of perception and suggests that multiple valid interpretations of reality are possible.

If we consider the teachings found in both ACIM and Rudolf Steiner, we can see that these approaches represent distinct variants within this type of multivariant universe, each providing its own path toward understanding and transformation. ACIM presents our physical reality as an illusion that can be escaped by pardoning the guilt one imposes on oneself and others, while Steiner’s Anthroposophy encourages individuals to cultivate spiritual awareness through an integration of self-knowledge with cosmic principles. Neither perspective holds absolute correctness, but their value lies within the specific frameworks they offer for those seeking deeper meaning in their own lives.

Each person’s understanding of themselves influences how they relate to these varied paths. When individuals resonate with a particular spiritual practice or teaching, it often reflects their current beliefs and developmental stage.

It can be risky to neglect one’s chosen variant or force alignment with conflicting beliefs. Attempting to adopt a spiritual path that contradicts one’s current values or unconscious preferences can lead to internal conflict and dissonance. Forcing an integration of incompatible approaches can result in superficiality rather than genuine understanding; it is important to recognize that each variant possesses its uniqueness and integrity within its proper sphere. The danger lies not in exploring diverse teachings but in negating one’s authentic intuitions or beliefs in pursuit of a certain pathway. This is not a trivial point. Impressed by Steiner’s legacy in many practical areas of life and his real scientific knowledge in many fields, added to his obvious spiritual abilities, people who resonate with both types of cognition can try to find truth via Steiner. They will find what their current level of knowledge and intuition suggests, and they will find as much truth as is contained in the sciences they studied and morphic fields they connect to (Bartlett, 2012; Sheldrake 2001)—no more, no less.

Coherence emerges as a vital element for personal well-being within the suggested framework of a multivariant universe. An individual must cultivate a sense of inner harmony—a consistency between belief systems and lived experiences—to thrive spiritually. When considering the writings of Steiner versus ACIM through this lens, we should focus on understanding how each reimagines Christ consciousness differently based on distinct spiritual needs and inclinations. While some may find solace in ACIM’s emphasis on love and forgiveness at the expense of physical reality during times of emotional turmoil, others may resonate more with Steiner’s holistic view that integrates physical existence with spiritual evolution.

Cultivating self-awareness and one’s own path towards self-discovery is the real work within this multivariant universe. It requires thoughtful reflection on one’s inner world—considering which beliefs resonate most profoundly—and discerning pathways that align with one’s yearnings for growth and coherence. This conclusion may seem boring and clichéd; however, it is ultimately the one I arrive at after engaging deeply with ACIM as well as many texts by Steiner and reports about his unbelievably great personality. Both ACIM and Anthroposophy—each rich with original concepts—have contributed to humanity’s spiritual-intellectual library from which seekers can draw to lead more fulfilled lives. I have one last comment: a person raised in Zomia doesn’t need these frameworks for integrating themselves; their collective and individual unconscious is not contaminated by notions like original sin or guilt. When we move even beyond ACIM and Steiner, we can encounter an undisturbed primeval landscape where we can begin anew. That will be the real start of something beautiful.