4142Re: [anthroposophy] Back on track
- Jul 16, 2002Paul writes:
> A few questions/comments:I'll make a stab at these questions, and hopefully any others who have
> 1/ Sergei Prokofieff clearly had extraordinary gifts to be able to write "R.S.
> and the Founding of the New Mysteries" in his mid-twenties, but Joel suggests
> that that equated with "trying on the mantle of an initiate". I think that that
> is unfounded: does Gordienko say this?
> 2/ When was Gordienko's book first published?
> 3/ What, if any, were her personal links to Prokofieff?
> 4/ Has Prokofieff responded to the arguments set out in her book?
> 5/ What are the implications of Gordienko's book?
read the book will contribute.
#1 The question would be whether this book (RSFNM) contains any
statements intended to represent original spiritual research or
experience. I am not that familiar with the book, but my recollection
of G's book is that SOP does in fact add material not initially provided
by Steiner. To report such material, to me at any rate, would be to
represent one's self as a spiritual researcher - aka an initiate. Does
anyone know of any such material being in RSFNM.
#2 My understanding is that it was originally written in German and
published in 1998.
#3 I have heard that both she and SOP were students of the Russian First
Class reader, Bodenev (I don't recall the spelling), and that this
person was later drummed out of the society for anti-semitism (while
some people say he was not anti-semitic). Further gossip since the book
came out was that G and SOP were lovers, and he broke it off and so she
wrote the book in a fit of whatever.
#4 Again gossip - supposedly SOP told Nick Thomas (English Society
General Secretary) that G had recanted in front of ten witnesses. Those
who heard this gossip tried to get SOP to say what witnesses and got no
response. I have yet to hear of SOP actually making a considered
#5 The implications to me are multiple. SOP is alleging as spiritual
facts, matters that are not true, and that the ship of the Society is
now under the sway of some other impulse than what Steiner hoped for.
To me, however, it is not the truth or not of G's book that is crucial
to the Society. What is being offered by Providence is a crisis, just
like those we have in our individual biographies. This crisis is a gift
and the important thing is how we respond. Do we choose sides based
upon some feelings of liking or disliking SOP (or G) as a person, or do
we consider the facts, read the book, and make a judgment based upon
real inner work and striving to know the truth. A lot of people so far
seem to be falling into the first category, which I find not a good sign
for the future of the Society.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>