Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17996Re: Anthroposophical Adult Education

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Hale
    Dec 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...>
      > S: « Steiner gave much supporting indication for this need in our
      > time, especially the nature of Soradt's third incarnation due to
      > in 1998.
      > Alas, they never followed through on his initiative to them to
      > accomplish this task, and haven't, to this very day. Very par for
      > course, it seems, in the overall re-assessment of what was sought;
      > over nine days, then over nine months, and tragically not
      forthcoming in
      > the nine years leading to 1933. »
      > Steve, the Christian Community cultivates a deepened Impulse – one
      > must therefore look for it's 'effects' on a deepened soul level.-
      > the time 'element' does not apply so immediately.
      > You mentioned the 'Sorat' incarnation - another deep mystery, with
      > external ramifications of course. I think you are going to have to
      > used to the idea that Rudolf Steiner had, in his spirit, to set
      > things up for humanity; what necessary safeguards i't' would need,
      > cover, not only the immediate, more external soul reflective
      > of man, but also all that applies to the underlying spiritual
      > evolutionary principal to which man himself belongs.
      > Therefore, from an external point of reference, it might seem that
      > Anthroposophy and, as well, the Christian Community are doing very
      > little in our time – but this may not be necessarily the case.
      > Pathways may actually be being made on the finer human planes of
      > 'action', so to speak - the etheric, the astral (including higher)
      > even Devachanic.

      Carol, I have great need to impart a truth that you and others may
      not yet be able to accept. It concerns how Steiner's selfless
      efforts on behalf of CC have been perverted in the aftermath of his
      death. Here is the lecture, as well as a specific notation
      concerning where, how, and why the dividing lines are drawn:


      "For the welfare of both Movements it is essential that they should
      be held clearly apart. Therefore in the beginning, since everything
      depends on our developing the strength to carry out what we have set
      our will to do, it is absolutely necessary in these early days that
      the Movement for Religious Renewal should work in all directions in
      circles outside the Anthroposophical Movement; that therefore,
      neither as regards the acquisition of material means — in order that
      the matter be clearly understood I must also speak about these
      things — should it encroach on sources which in any event only flow
      with great difficulty for the Anthroposophical Movement, nor, because
      it does not at once succeed in finding adherents among non-
      Anthroposophists, should it, for example, make proselytes within the
      ranks of the Anthroposophists. Were it to do so, it would be doing
      something that would inevitably lead to the destruction of both
      Movements. It is really not a matter today of going forward with a
      certain fanaticism, but of being conscious that we can do what is
      necessary for man only when we work out of the necessity of the thing

      What I am now stating as consequences, were also equally the
      preliminary conditions for lending my assistance in the founding of
      the Movement for Religious Renewal, for only under these conditions
      could I assist it. If these preliminary conditions had not been
      there, the Movement for Religious Renewal would never have originated
      through my advice.

      Therefore I beg you to understand that it is necessary for the
      Movement for Religious Renewal to know that it must adhere to its
      starting point, that it has promised to look for its adherents
      outside the sphere of the Anthroposophical Movements, for it is there
      that they can be found in the natural way, and there they must be

      What I have said to you has not been said because of any anxiety lest
      something might be dug away from the Anthroposophical Movement, and
      it has certainly not been said out of any personal motive, but solely
      out of the necessity of the case itself. And it is also important to
      understand in what way alone it is possible to work rightly in each
      of these spheres of activity. It is indeed necessary that with regard
      to important matters we should state quite clearly how the case
      stands, for there is at the present time far too great a tendency to
      blur things and not to see them clearly. But clarity is essential
      today in every sphere.

      If therefore someone were to exclaim: The very one who himself put
      this Movement for Religious Renewal into the world now speaks like
      this!! ... well, my dear friends, the whole point is that if I had at
      any time spoken differently about these things, I should not have
      lent a hand towards founding this Movement for Religious Renewal. It
      must remain at its starting point. What I am now saying, I am of
      course saying merely in order that these things may be correctly
      understood in the Anthroposophical Society and so that it shall not
      be said (as is reported to have happened already): The
      Anthroposophical Movement did not get on very well, and so now they
      have founded the Movement for Religious Renewal as the right thing.
      I am quite sure that the very excellent and outstanding individuals
      who have founded the Movement for Religious Renewal will oppose any
      such legend most vigorously, and will also sternly refuse to make
      proselytes within the Anthroposophical Movement. — But, as has been
      said, the matter must be rightly understood within the
      Anthroposophical Movement itself.

      I know, my dear friends, that there are always some who find it
      unpleasant to hear explanations such as these — which are necessary
      from time to time, not in order to complain in one direction or
      another, nor for the sake of criticism, but solely in order to
      present something once and for all in its true light. I know there
      are always some who dislike it when clarity is substituted for
      nebulous obscurity. But this is absolutely essential for the welfare
      and growth of the Anthroposophical Movement as well as of the
      Movement for Religious Renewal. The Movement for Religious Renewal
      cannot flourish if it in any way damages the Anthroposophical

      This must be thoroughly understood, especially by Anthroposophists,
      so that whenever it is necessary to stand up for the rights of the
      matter, they may really be able to do so. When, therefore, there is
      any question about an anthroposophist's attitude towards religious
      renewal, he must be clear that his attitude can only be that of an
      adviser, that he gives what he can give in the way of spiritual
      possessions, and when it is a case of participating in the
      ceremonies, that he is conscious of doing so in order to help these
      ceremonies on their way. He alone can be a spiritual helper of the
      Movement for Religious Renewal who is himself first a good
      anthroposophist. But this Movement for Religious Renewal must be
      sustained, in every direction, by persons who, because of the
      particular configuration and tendencies of their spiritual life,
      cannot yet find their way into the Anthroposophical Society itself.
      I hope that none of you will now go to someone who is doing active
      work in the Movement for Religious Renewal and say: This or that has
      been said against it in Dornach. — Nothing has been said against it.
      In love and in devotion to the spiritual world the Movement for
      Religious Renewal has been given counsel from out of the spiritual
      world, in order that it might rightly found itself. But the fact must
      be known by Anthroposophists that it has founded itse1f out of
      itself, that it has formed — not, it is true, the content of its
      ritual, but the fact of its ritual, out of its own force and its own
      initiative, and that the essential core of the Anthroposophical
      Movement has nothing to do with the Movement for Religious Renewal.
      Certainly no wish could be stronger than mine that the Movement for
      Religious Renewal shall grow and flourish more and more, but always
      in adherence to the original intentions. Anthroposophical Groups must
      not be changed into communities for religious renewal, either in a
      materia1 or in a spiritual sense.

      I was obliged to say this today, for, as you know, counsel and advice
      had to be given for a Cult, a Cult whose growth in our present time
      is earnestly desired by me. In order that no misunderstanding should
      arise in regard to this Cult when I speak tomorrow of the conditions
      of the life of Cult in the spiritual world, I felt it necessary to
      insert these words today as an episode in our course of lectures."

      (The following night the first Goetheanum was destroyed by fire.)
    • Show all 34 messages in this topic