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

basic anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • Joel Wendt
    Dear List-mates, Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don t want to stand behind what they write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List-mates,

      Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don't want to stand behind what they
      write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
      Robert's last post, where he admits he doesn't know much and then goes
      on to create his own form of the general confusion in the
      Anthroposophical Movement...

      First, please lets be honest about the last 100 years of
      anthroposophical activity...people are going to have gotten a lot of
      stuff just wrong. Not because they didn't try, but because we are
      human, and make errors, and once Steiner died the best corrective for
      our errors changed his field of operations. If you wanted Steiner's
      help, it wasn't going to be found in his books, but in the inner forum
      of ones own soul, but people went to his books - to the past of dead
      thought and not to the living thought available to our own thinking
      activity...

      Robert seems to confuse the path of PoF with Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
      as if these were the same thing, which they are not. Don't have to
      believe me, by the way, you can read Lowndes' Enliveninig the Chakra of
      the Heart, wherein in the last two chapters the difference between these
      two paths and the significance of this difference is carefully introduced...

      Now we are starting a second hundred years of anthroposophical activity
      (this is quite significant, because Christ works Century to Century in
      33 year rhythms (see Ben-Aharon's The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
      Century). Our condition as a spiritual movement is fraught with
      dangers. The cumulative failures of the 20th Century must be faced (if
      we don't, it becomes the same flaw that undoes a student of esotericism
      who refuses to look honestly at his own past).

      The archetype of these failures lives in the work of S.O. Prokofieff,
      who is a very nice man, very sincere, hard working, and something of an
      intellectual genius without a doubt. He is the perfect example of what
      happens if people don't make a connection to Steiner's early works on
      spiriual freedom, moral imagination and picture thinking. Let me lay
      out the general shape of the basic flaw that permiates almost all of
      anthroposophical work, including Prokofieff and even Robert's efforts on
      Ahriman ( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1105/ahriman.htm ).

      Rudolf Steiner's lectures are not much more than highly accurate maps of
      spiritual realities. Anyone who has had real spiritual experiences on
      the anthroposophical path knows this to be the case. The actual
      territory is so far outside what words can convey that it becomes
      obvious that the lectures produce a serious temptation to the soul.

      Steiner himself, in Occult Science an Outline, does not speak even of
      that book as providing knowledge to the reader, but only
      "understanding". This is so for most of what Steiner wrote and lectured
      about - our "understanding" is enriched, and this has positive
      consequences for the soul AS LONG AS we don't mistake "understanding"
      for "knowledge".

      Yet, this is precisely how the anthroposophical movement has come to
      treat the "understanding" that Steiner has given us, and we have then
      (by this fatal weakness) made of his work in our souls not anthroposophy
      but Steinerism. People who are believers in Steinerism, and haven't
      then followed the Path of Cognition laid out in the epistemologies, then
      don't "know" their own souls well enough to realize that this huge
      content of Steiner-thought they have consumed has become a kind of prison.

      The clue that this is the case is the enormous frequency of the phrase:
      "Steiner said".

      Thinking, which is seeking freedom, will want more to form its own
      conclusions about matters and will resist letting live in the soul too
      much Steiner-thought.

      The real arena of spiritual activity is within us. The true battle is
      fought there, not in the outer world of the senses.

      At the beginning of this new century no one should be surprised that
      within the anthroposophical movement itself a struggle is arising,
      between that which has actually followed Steiner's Path of Cognition,
      and those who couldn't quite get it, but now want to justify their own
      understandable weaknesses by attacking the truth.

      The clue here is the weaknesses of their approach. Emil and Robert
      can't actually stand here in this forum and speak to what they don't
      know. At best they can seek to tar and feather that which would make
      them face what hasn't been made into knowledge in their own souls, but
      which they would rather protect at whatever cost to others.

      There are consequences to our actions. As seekers of the spirit, the
      most significant actions in this regard are inwardly in the soul, not
      outwardly in the social world. We can only seek the spirit within, via
      the activity of the own spirit in the own soul. There lies the "narrow
      gate", and the endless quoting of Steiner can only obscure and make more
      difficult this essential work.

      So far (in the last century), the anthroposophical movement has been
      immature. Now it is time for it to grow up, a process certain to be
      painful.

      warm regards,
      joel
    • Terence
      In the not too distant past, I happened upon an interesting old chap by the name of Stanley Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special perspective to share.
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        In the not too distant past, I happened upon an
        interesting old chap by the name of Stanley
        Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special
        perspective to share. I would encourage a visit to
        his site. Copy and past everything between the
        < ... >

        <http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-lucifer.html>

        I would call particular attention to : *Claim Two.
        Here's another even more frequently heard
        statement. "Oh! I can't read The Philosophy of
        Freedom. That's far beyond me. I need to experience
        spirit in action in the world."*

        I am especailly fond of what Stanley writes near
        the end of his letter; *... Well, in the first place
        no-one approaching initiate knowledge for the first
        time will be denied human as well as super-sensible
        help and support, though, in the absence of the
        Society, it is more likely to be through the loving
        recognition of individuals than through formal
        study-groups with official auspices. But there is
        something more. We have a School of Spiritual
        Science. It was set up under the old dispensation,
        and it has remained incomplete. Anthroposophy
        didn't transform the mind-set of the pre-millennial
        western world, though it had a profound hidden
        effect upon it. Have you thought, as a member of
        that school, that it might be possible, in drawing
        a line under it, to graduate from that school?
        Perhaps no-one would get first-class honours. But
        have you thought that Rudolf Steiner, who with Ita
        Wegman, is now intensely occupied with his next
        world task, and longs to be released from the
        tragic karma of anthroposophy, might, if asked,
        happily give pass degrees to those who ask, and
        release both himself and the rest of us from what
        may otherwise become an esoteric blind-alley? There
        is so much love in the New World. We could all go
        on and join them*

        If we continue to quote Steiner and use
        Steinerism's rather than think for ourselves and
        express oursleves as best as we can, as Joel
        mentions in his recent post, are we not parts of a
        binding agent for the future of the soul-spirit of
        RS and the next phase of his work? And are we not
        also binding ourselves to the past history of
        Anthroposophy?

        Having read the parts, pieces and parcels of
        Spiritual Science extensively for years I am
        intimatley aware of the necessity to comprehend the
        significant difference between understanding and
        knowledge.

        May Stanley's message be of assistance to help you
        become unfettered from the yoke of understanding
        anthroposophy....especially if you are a Beginner.
        May as well start off on the right foot, eh?

        Terence
      • Terence
        ... SNIP ... Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your own business, as what I wrote doesn t include you. Keep on reading, asking questions,
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@c...> wrote:

          SNIP

          > Terrence, I don't know what to say to you, but something seems very wrong.

          Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your
          own business, as what I wrote doesn't include you.

          Keep on reading, asking questions, meditating, pray
          and by all means stay inside your skin and look at
          you and your relationship with people you are in
          relationship with, and with the burgeoning relationship
          you are having with your soul. Anthroposophy is not
          about persons. We all have our shadow or
          doppleganger to contend with until we meet the
          Lower Guardian of the Threshold. When you get to
          that place in your soul-spirit growth you will
          recognize the truth that Anthroposophy is not about
          persons.

          Out of curiosity, if you willingto answer, what is
          Anthropsophy about to you?

          Terence
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.