4174Re: [anthroposophy] Back on track
- Jul 17 11:14 AMI hardly remember well, but I think that the material that
SOP added to "initiate nw mysteries" was worked out
intellectualy, via deduction and induction; I don't remember
it coming across as if he was using spiritual vision to write
the book. My impression is that he was trying to follow
Steiners advice and use clear thinking to support and add to
SOP is fine, but his book against tomberge is embarrasing-
not that it shouldnt have been written or that Tomb shouldnt
be criticised, but SOP comes across as childlike in his
--- Joel Wendt <hermit@...> wrote:
> Paul writes:__________________________________________________
> > A few questions/comments:
> > 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?
> I'll make a stab at these questions, and hopefully any
> others who have
> read the book will contribute.
> #1 The question would be whether this book (RSFNM) contains
> statements intended to represent original spiritual
> research or
> experience. I am not that familiar with the book, but my
> 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
> 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
> #5 The implications to me are multiple. SOP is alleging as
> 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.
> warm regards,
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>