the initiate matter
- Andrea Franco wrote:
I cannot agrre with your thoughts about the
"initiates". The link
with The Christ is the Crux, OK. But the Christ is not
the "Initiates" are His servants and helpers I need to
web of their living thoughts of Anthroposophicak path
: people like
Stein.Lievegood,Zeylmans,Scaligero and (why noyt ") Ben
cet. are there to help my weak forces in order to make
me able to
walk on the Christ's cognition path. I think their
thoughts but the
thinking-force is an universal force with thousands
different "creeks" I try to ship with my little canoa
on these creeks."
I think you will agree that what you do and what I do
are (and ought to be) two different matters. The Way
of one of us does not make the Way of the "other" (the
thou) in error. For me, my life has been a path of
making my own judgments about what is true. I read
many people, so-called initiates as well as others. I
take from whatever appears before me and test it before
my own judgment.
I don't claim to be right, nor do I assert to others
that any person whose "thoughts" I have read are right
(unless I have been able to determine myself that they
are true - at which point what I say to others is that
so and so said such and such and I have tested it
myself and found it to be true).
I have also found it problematic (I even wrote an essay
on it) to consider that what I read is "knowledge". It
may have been knowledge to the one who wrote it or
spoke it, but to me it is not knowledge. This is
especially true with the work of so-called initiates,
or any individual reporting on the results of spiritual
My understanding is that for something to be
"knowledge", requires in the consciousness of the
person experiencing the "knowledge" the union of
percept and concept. When I read the words of an
"initiate", while I may have the concept within my own
soul, I do not have the percept, as that lies on the
other side of the threshold.
Therefore, what I read (and reconstruct in my
imagination) is not knowledge, but something else. It
is essentially an "invention".
Now it is possible to go beyond this "invention".
Through meditation and other practices it may arise
that I have an experience of the percept toward which
the words of the "initiate" have pointed.
Consider an example, say Steiner's descriptions of the
Saturn, Sun and Moon incarnations of the Earth, prior
to its present material existence. The words on the
page (of Occult Science, for example) are not what
Steiner experienced. They are, at best, a very poor
map of a rather extraordinary territory. I, as a
reader of Steiner, may have knowledge of maps, but of
the Reality, I will "know" nothing.
Now the issues of trust of the spiritual researcher's
reports (the maps) and the use we make of this
knowledge of "maps", are choices that belong to each of
us to make. As far as I am concerned, there is no
"rule" but that which lives in our own judgment.
There is, however, a very grave danger.
In the soul, it is possible to have "beliefs". One can
take into one's consciousness the images created by the
reading of these "maps" and believe them to be true.
In fact, one can so absorb the complex and rich reports
of anthroposophically oriented spiritual research, that
a whole world view arises in the soul, to which our
ego, commits itself much like the ego can commit itself
to a "religious" belief.
It is this relationship, this "religious" attachment,
that leads to the danger. The soul can, in this
condition, no longer distinguish between what it
"knows" and what it "believes". It so "loves" its
beliefs that it sacrifices its spiritual freedom, and
becomes "captured" by the concept (the re-imagined
"maps"). It is at such a point in the life of the
soul, that the condition of soul and spiritual life,
which was intended by Steiner to arise from the
encounter with his book the Philosophy of Freedom, has
The anthroposophical movement and Society flounder on
just this failure to distinguish between maps and the
territory, and beliefs and knowledge, and percepts and
Now the question to me is this: Does your statement
above - "The link with The Christ is the Crux, OK. But
the Christ is not alone and the "Initiates" are His
servants and helpers" - derive from belief or
It also sounds (but this could be a problem of
language) a lot like the old relationship between
Priest and Parishioner, where the former is a necessary
intermediary between the I and God. Now, to me, it
seems that you want to assert the same relationship,
only this time it is Initiate and non-initiate, instead
of Priest and Parishioner. Personally, I don't want
anyone inbetween, and I don't think that Christ wants
anyone inbetween either.
I do understand your idea about the "creeks" in the
world of thoughts, and about taking your canoe down a
trail where the initiate has already gone. However, I
don't know how this is a support for your own cognitive
activity. My own experience is that I cross the
threshold on my own forces, not riding on the back of a
theme that another has guided me toward. The theme (an
initiates thoughts) seems to have value as a subject
(that is as a percept to seek) to go toward, but the
forces lie within my own soul.
Perhaps you meant something else, and could say more.