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

Re: [anthroposophy] A Modern Spiritual Path

Expand Messages
  • Pacbay
    Instead of a point by point counter agrument I simply refer people to the Guidance in Esoteric Training pages 76-80 where Yogic breathing is explained within
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Instead of a point by point counter agrument I simply refer people to the Guidance in Esoteric Training pages 76-80 where Yogic breathing is explained within the context of AP development, deeper esoteric work, AUM and Easter ideal. In addition, in the preface to this work, RS says the following:
       
      "Properly understood, it must be the task of Theosophy or Spiritual Science in general, to show that the Christian religion calls for the penetration into the deepest Wisdom teachings. Theosophy is not a religion, but an instrument for understanding all the religions.
       
      This (and subsequent statements in this preface) certainly implies that Wisdom extends across time  but truth remains true whether its 3000 thousand years ago or today.The value of AP is that it has presented the next step in spiritual understanding and can be used to appreciate and understand spiritual traditions of the past not reject them wholesale or tear them down indiscriminately. Case in point, though certain types of practices of the past may not be valuable today, there are essential principles that remains true and appropriate like prayer, image building, concentration, breath awareness and workl (advanced practices for the Eastern and Western practioner), etc.
       
      How these older practices are engaged, if at all,  in another issue. It is well known, for example that RS recited the Lords Prayer often and loudly in private. Since this prayer is 2000 years old, one taking a view of  that "ancient practices" are obsolete, may say this prayer is no longer appropriate. Obviously, RS felt differently. Buddhists find it extremely valuable to sit and be still without any soul content or activity as one practice among many. This is no different than the Judeo-Christian admonition, Be Still and Know thy God.
       
       
      Jeff
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 8:22 AM
      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] A Modern Spiritual Path

      pacbay@... writes:
      . My desire is to have Anthroposophy succeed in spite of itself.



      *******That about says it all, doesn't it? In other words, it sounds to me, you want something to go forward once all the elements of an objective science (that inwardly-lazy people would find 'too strict' & 'too hard', and that people who don't want to commit to one thing might find not 'diverse' enough), have been removed. I don't think those of us working on the basis of this science are interested in having it thus 'succeed' by removing its very heart. Nor do I believe this growing movement needs advice from us how to keep going. It sprang from a true spiritual source, and continues to flow from same. Name one other person who claimed to be in touch with the highest sources who has demonstrated it by the farms, schools, communities, etc. that have been able to find spiritual nourishment within that source to flourish instead of abstract intellectual stuff that has no will-forces because it's not from a true spiritual source, like Alice Bailey, Leadbeater, Krishnamurti or whomever.

          If we can't point out these truths on an anthroposophy list, where can we? This isn't a Theosophy list or a 'mixed-bag' list.


      >> I do not mix up AP with other things but attempt to find common principles and truths. I refuse to put it on a pedestal - separate and distinct from all religion and spirituality. Here is an example about Yoga: for years RS said no to breathing exercises; counting breaths and and controling the breath as in yoga. Yet, lo and behold, Guidance in Esoteric Training in placed in print (a collection of esoteric exercises given over the years by RS) and breath work and exercises are abundant! A contradiction?

    • Pacbay
      If by theirs fruits is the criteria for what is good for the soul and evolution of mankind, I would say that many other groups have made a greater spiritual
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        "If by theirs fruits" is the criteria for what is good for the soul and evolution of mankind, I would say that many other groups have made a greater spiritual impact on more people than AP. From the Course in Miracles to Wayne Dyer to Dr.Phil to the full impact of Theosophy over the years. Though Leadbeater may have fallen from grace later in his life, his earlier books introduced thousands to seeing the world "clairvoyantly: instead of materialistically. Yes, he may have lacked the spiritual insight and depth of Steiner but one doesn't have to understand digestion to eat.  Geoffrey Hudson's clairvoyant work in Theosophy stands above anything found in AP in terms of opening the doors of perception for the common person to nature spirits, the human aura, and the invisible worlds. (There continues to be a disagreement between AP's depiction of invisible influences and that of other schools but this may be more academic than significant.) Those who are really on the path will find out the distinctions between mobility of the ethers and astral phenomena and not expect images to be static or fixed. The artistic depictions of spiritual phenomena are helpful to many and The Kingdom of Gods by Hudson is a classic and has open the eyes of thousands to the imagining a world beyond the physical. Dora Van Gelder's "theosophically supported" work on disease and human aura has helped numerous healers work more specifically with patients.  The works of Ken Wilbur, a Theosophical Buddhist philosopher are recognized as leading edge thinking.
         
        Some may argue again more is not better since "quality" and "truth" is sacrificed but if this measure were used,  then Christianity would be the greatest fraud religion ever perpetrated on mankind. No one within its faith knows the inner esoteric "facts" behind its inception, purpose or true status of its Founder. Yet, hasn't there been some good resulting from its poor, misguided principles and weak understanding of the "truth". I would say yes. Goodness often transcends the need for knowledge and truth. If one is committed to the good and true, they will find what they need and move forward to a more complete spiritual philosophy or method. Life has a strange way of pushing us forward if we believe something without questioning it. Sooner or later, open-mindedness, creativity, and expansive thinking are seen as virtues not principles of compromise and wishy washy spirituality.
         
        Jeff
         
         
        Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 10:36 AM
        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Re: A Modern Spiritual Path

        pacbay@... writes:
        Great response and clear thinking on the subject.

        Jeff


        *******Quite the opposite, I'd say. First, it is not necessary to meet every member of a church to know what the church teaches, and the Thoesophical Society showed by its publications and who it chose as leaders what it believed in and taught. Second, attempting to define a specific Eastern-oriented movement by talking generally about a word in its title is misleading at best, while defining it by saying 'well, a book of Steiner's is called Theosophy' is going further into being deliberately deceptive for anyone who knows how he broke away from that movement and repudiated it after he wrote that book. Third, there is no Rosicrucian "Society" that Steiner and his wife were members of, since no Rosicrucian Society ever has existed as one with actual meetings and records from the time its existence was alleged in 1604 until the 2 fake California ones claiming the name were made up. Fourth, Steiner was elected member of the German section of the Theosophical Society but he was indeed pressured to accept the dogmatic line of the English leadership, and was from the start at odds with his emphasis on the Christ, who Theospophists regarded as no more than a good teacher on the level of Lao Tzu or someone. Fifth, quoting the Theosophical Society's lofty-sounding aims has no relation to the reality of that Society in Steiner's time, when the corruption which eventually sank (including Mr. Leadbeater and his penchant for young boys) was already in full swing.

           And a final bit of really clear thinking: "By their fruits shall ye know them." Look at the fruits of anthroposophy and the fruits of the T.S. No more need really be said.

        -Starman



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: ">888 <fireofthe12@...>
        To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:36 AM
        Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: A Modern Spiritual Path [was: Light on the Path - A universal question]


        Dear GQ,
        >I am the one who first called theosophists nutty.

        I think what has been called for is some clarity of thinking rather
        than someone saying, "I am dispensing the truth, and that's that".
        Firstly, who or what are theosophists? On what basis do you make the
        claim that they are all insane? What are your qualifications for
        making that judgement? Have you met every theosophist?
        >theosophy IS backward and eastern and none of what i said then or
        now is criticism: it is truth.
        "Theosophy" is a book by Rudolf Steiner. The word means "Divine
        wisdom" or the "wisdom of God". It is not specifically Eastern,
        Western, Northern or Southern. Some of the famous theosophists of
        history are Paracelsus, Oetinger and Jacob Boehme, all of whom were
        Western or Christian theosophists.

        The original impulse behind the modern theosophical society was a
        rosicrucian one, according to Dr. Steiner- who was himself a member
        of that said society (along with his wife Marie). So that makes
        Steiner and all the people who followed him nuts too. During the long
        period in which he was a member, he was also the leader of the German
        section. Now the question is, if the theosophical society taught
        Eastern doctrines why was Dr. Steiner allowed to teach his Western
        Rosicrucian teachings and be a leader of the section?  Why was this
        allowed to happen? The reason is that the stated aim of the TS was to
        avoid dogma. It was a truly open forum with members making up their
        own minds on whether they wanted follow Eastern or Western paths.
        Theosophy is not a religion. In London during the time when HPB was
        alive, Dr. Kingsland was the leader of the Lodge and she taught her
        own brand of Christian teachings.

        HPB moved away from the Rosicrucian to a more Eastern approach- first
        Indian Hindu and then Tibetan Buddhist. But her teachings were never
        meant to be dogma.

        These are the aims of one of the Theosophical Societies:

        "To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity, without
        distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color.
        To encourage the study of Comparative Religion, Philosophy, and
        Science.
        To investigate unexplained laws of Nature and the powers latent in
        Man."

        There is nothing there about it being a path or having dogmas
        (Eastern or otherwise)and forcing people to believe one thing or
        another. You often find anthroposophists speaking at theosophical
        societies around the world. John Barnwell is a regular contributor,
        why even our own Bradford has spoken there.

        >Steiner is much more difficult to understand than any other path,
        therefore it is easy to see >laziness is the major cause of the harsh
        criticism of his teachings.

        As I said, theosophy is not a path. Blavatsky (who is not easy
        reading)never taught meditation or occult exercises. If someone wants
        to talk about anthroposophy at the TS they can- this goes for the
        Adyar society. If Annie Besant had accepted Steiner instead of
        Leadbeater as her guide, there may never have been an
        anthroposophical society. Dr. Steiner was in no hurry to leave but
        things became unbearable with the Krishnamurti issue.


        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
        Unsubscribe:
        anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
        List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Pacbay
        Jeff: I really must ask myself why I continue this conversation but ...... I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it: HPB, Heindel, Manly
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
           
          Jeff: I really must ask myself why I continue this "conversation"  but ......
           
           
           
           
          I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it:  HPB, Heindel, Manly Hall, and others were not interested in creating a spiritual, cultural movement! They were educators and teachers who offered their work to inspire and educate others about spiritual subjects and philosophy. They left it up to the student do what they wanted in the real world.
           
          Steiner's mission (and as was asked of him by his Teacher and followers) was to create cultural initiatives. Bach did not study astronomy. He was here to offer music. Henry Ford was not a gardener; he was car manufacturer.  Cayce was not race car driver, he presented counseling and information to those who came to him on very limited basis.. Which brings up Cayce. Why don't you include him is your collective disappointment of other teachers. He did not create a movement as such. Comparing Steiner with others is like comparing Michelangelo with Shakespeare. Shakespheare was here to write not invent early concepts for airplanes and guns.
           
           
           
          >Pacbay>>...the TS and Heindel's work was not intended to start cultural movements or load people down with multiple choices for spiritual practice leading to confusion.
          *******Having the paths of eurythmy, anthroposophical medicine, Camphill Villages, Waldorf Schools, bio-dynamic farms etc. within our movement has yet to be observed to cause people 'confusion'. On the contrary, that's why so many different types of people can use it. And what use is a movement with no place for will-impulses, no healing of human beings, no educational reform, no new arts of movement and speech, no farms healing the earth? To produce books that look good on a shelf?
          I would predict that Heindel's Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception has out sold all of Steiner's basic books combined world wide. Of course, you will say, "quanitity is not quality" but see my other post about Christianity for this weak argument.


          >> this is the puzzle of modern esoteric movements- they continue to be heavy on teaching and philosophy and did not grasp the need for integrated practice.

          *******The ones you mention, yes---not anthroposophy. It's not just in the head.
          Are you kidding!! AP's are renown for being the most intellectual and "heady" spiritual practicioners in America and Europe. Go back out in the world and talk with those involved in spiritual pursuits and take a poll.



          >>>If I want to learn to grow vegetables , I would go to a Bio Dynamic center.... If I want to develop clairvoyance or safe entry into the spiritual worlds, I go to Knowledge of Higher Worlds and do the practices.


          *******Wrong. That's not an either/or. If one wishes to really understand the medicine, the agriculture, or whatever, you have to walk the spiritual path. That's why, when Steiner re-founded the Society 79 years ago, the School of Spiritual Science for contacting the Source was at its center and the various initiatives were made sections where this insight gained through the center would be applied. It is still working, regardless of how many people choose to not ally themselves with it or try to replace it with ersatz occultism and try to call that 'anthroposophy'. After all, large numbers aren't what matters, and certainly not at the expense of having any real content. I think our movement will have a great year ahead, and a great 21st century.

           
          Let's hope so. "Real content or not", (as opposed to ???) the world needs help from whatever corner it comes.
           
          JLA
           
           
           
           
           
           
           

           
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
          Unsubscribe:
          anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
          List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
          ... ******I d say it s your judgement that whatever it is they experienced was so benevolent to them, but that s impossible to verify without observing the
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            pacbay@... writes:
            If I were to live by this atavistic principle, several of my friends would be devoid of critical spiritual and psychological realizations that came early on in their pursuits in their 20's. Though Eastern in nature, they remain the most convincing and powerful seminal experiences of the spiritual that they have had since. This includes two who has worked with the AP and Rosicrucian path for over 30 years!! They are still waiting for "that breakthrough".
            Jeff

            ******I'd say it's your judgement that whatever it is they experienced was so benevolent to them, but that's impossible to verify without observing the individuals. Moreover, I've already found often that if people are still clinging to the effects of Luciferic experiences that affected them a lot in their 20s, whether from drugs or Eastern Yoga practices, they can't progress with the anthroposophic path until they undo the damage those have done--- and in fact, often can't even live a normal live in the practical world. That's how harmful those things are. That might explain why he the people you mention haven't succeeded with Anthroposophy for 30 years, because of what they did before that. I know some people who have found it after a lot of early drug use that are similarly weak.

               And that points up an additional reason for being absolutely precise in distinguishing the effects of the anthroposophical Path from others, for people who claim to be concerned about this movement and its public image -- -- -- so many sensible people, seeing others ruined by non-rational Eastern or drug stuff and rendered incapable of dealing with ordinary life in the modern world, have only a negative impression of 'mysticism' or 'metaphysics' from dealing with these poor souls, and so will not even consider Anthroposophy, confusing it with these things. It's more important than ever that we let people know that the true spiritual path for modern-day people has nothing to do with such. It is a fundamental teaching of Anthroposophy that one must be quite capable of dealing with this lower world before trying to master the higher.

               As for Stephen's assertion you responded to below, it is of course elementary psychology that all of us do indeed "reject" our childhood selves, and could not become competent adults without doing so. The childish psyche persisting into adulthood is a primary cause of schizophrenia. This pathological state, a "backward" one indeed, likewise has nothing to do with true spiritual development. In every healthy adult, it undergoes a metamorphosis, and must do so in order for the psyche to overcome adolescence.

            -Starman

            Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] A Modern Spiritual Path
            I appreciate your well-informed contributions on a thread which is showing
            some pernicious tendencies, specifically the <backward> thing.
            According to the logic of Starman and some others, one should also reject
            one's own childhood as <atavistic> or <backward>.  Yet we all know - or
            should know - about the vital and continuing importance of our early
            development, a development which is not <over>, but which continues to
            operate in a very lively fashion below the most recent layers of
            development. 
          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
            *******This is an anthroposophy list where we should be able to speak the truth without watering it down. pacbay@attbi.com writes: ... As to his opinion of
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              *******This is an anthroposophy list where we should be able to speak the truth without watering it down.

              pacbay@... writes:

              I would suggest turning the hose on some of the concepts you and others may have about AP and rinse away the dust. AP means the wisdom of Man or that wisdom coming from the inner spiritual efforts of man. Wisdom is neither static or a hard rock that resists water. Water softens that which has been hardened..


              ******I would suggest reminding readers Jeff is not an anthroposophist, and that his goals are his own, not the movement's.

                   As to his opinion of its value, I' can do know better then to refer us to Knowledge of the Higher
              Worlds, Chapter One:


              "It is not easy, at first, to believe that feelings like reverence and respect have anything to do with cognition. This is due to the fact that we are inclined to set cognition aside as a faculty by itself — one that stands in no relation to what otherwise occurs in the soul. In so thinking we do not bear in mind that it is the soul which exercises the faculty of cognition; and feelings are for the soul what food is for the body. If we give the body stones in place of bread, its activity will cease. It is the same with the soul. Veneration, homage, devotion are like nutriment making it healthy and strong, especially strong for the activity of cognition. Disrespect, antipathy, underestimation of what deserves recognition, all exert a paralyzing and withering effect on this faculty of cognition. "


            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
              pacbay@attbi.com writes: ... ******So much for the Christmas spirit! Well, maybe too much eggnog has made you have too much mucus, and therefore be a
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                pacbay@... writes:

                I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it: 



                ******So much for the Christmas spirit! Well, maybe too much eggnog has made you have too much mucus, and therefore be a trifle 'snotty'. It's OK -- -- -- it happens to the best of us. And you're not even running for president!


                >>>>HPB, Heindel, Manly Hall, and others were not interested in creating a

                spiritual, cultural movement! They were educators and teachers who offered their work to inspire and educate others about spiritual subjects and philosophy...


                *******I read it the first-time, and I still say it's quite wrong. The Theosophical Society started MANY  initiatives -- -- -- schools, experimental communities, churches. They've all collapsed, from the Theosophical Society schools in England to the "Liberal Catholic Church" that was supposedly going to revitalize religion. 
                   Annie Besant was a socialist and a birth control pioneer. These people didn't want to affect the practical world around them? They just wanted to produce books on a shelf? You might be able to assert that about Manly Hall, but not William Quan Judge, Henry Olcott, C. W. Leadbeater, etc., etc.
                   This is just your way of avoiding admitting the comparison of a failed movement with a successful one, but I think that is the case.
                    More importantly, it ignores Steiner's clear teaching that the mere forces of the head cannot any longer truly reach the spiritual. A "spiritual movement" without a practical side where the will-forces are used is a contradiction in terms. It's not a spiritual movement if it tries to be something just in the head like in ancient Greece.




                Cayce. Why don't you include him is your collective disappointment of other teachers.
                 
                 
                *******I do. that Cayce organization was created for psychic research and healing, like their original hospital. These initiatives have largely come to nothing, because their source was flawed.  It's just an Edgar Cayce Museum now: except for the A. R. E. Clinic out in Arizona, nothing much has come from it.

                >Pacbay>>...the TS and Heindel's work was not intended to ... load people down with multiple choices for spiritual practice leading to confusion.

                *******Having the paths of eurythmy, anthroposophical medicine, Camphill Villages, Waldorf Schools, bio-dynamic farms etc. within our movement has yet to be observed to cause people 'confusion'. On the contrary, that's why so many different types of people can use it. And what use is a movement with no place for will-impulses, no healing of human beings, no educational reform, no new arts of movement and speech, no farms healing the earth?

                I would predict that Heindel's Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception has out sold all of Steiner's basic books combined world wide. Of course, you will say, "quanitity is not quality" but see my other post about Christianity for this weak argument.

                *******It's far from a weak argument, Jeff. You're always talking about what's "popular" and trying to get anthroposophists to change so that the movement will be "more popular". Well, I'm sorry, but there is no "punk rock" or "Howard Stern" version of Anthroposophy, and there never will be, because it's based on higher development of thinking and feeling which the masses will not embrace for millennia. Cride and false versions of occultism will always sell better, because they don't require will forces from lazy people. However, it doesn't matter how many books Polyester Crowley sells, because ultimately they do nothing for people, and so people will always still be seeking the real thing. Fake imitations of genuine occultism are like Chinese food: an hour after you take it in, you're hungry again.

                    When they're ready, they'll find it.

                    Moreover, you show that you either did not understand my response or just wanted to dodge it: what can people DO with Heindel's imitation "Steiner Lite" except read books and talk? That's no different than other occultism that doesn't really do anything for a person because it's only from the head, not the Spirit.  Where is anything for human spirits to take up and be productive with? Where is the Art?   After all, one picture is worth a thousand words.

                   And finally, I'd be willing to bet that Heindel's little "Outline of Occult Science" rip-off has sold nowhere near as many copies as the basic books of Rudolf Steiner, anyway. The Oceanside Rosicrucians have not even been as successful as the San Jose ones.



                >>this is the puzzle of modern esoteric movements- they continue to be heavy on teaching and philosophy and did not grasp the need for integrated practice.

                *******The ones you mention, yes---not anthroposophy. It's not just in the head.


                Are you kidding!! AP's are renown for being the most intellectual and "heady" spiritual practicioners in America and Europe. Go back out in the world and talk with those involved in spiritual pursuits and take a poll.

                *******Since most so-called "spiritual" movements are mere "feeling mysticism", where Anthroposophy instead is a path starting from thinking, naturally their opinions can be predicted. Others are perfectly free to pursue their own paths, and to proclaim them superior. But their opinions are what is truly "only from the head".  

                   Find some anthroposophists living only in their heads in a Waldorf school dealing with high-energy kids, or at Weleda making herbal preparations, or on a biodynamic farm pitching manure into a compost heap, or learning forms in Eurythmy, or in a thousand other places.

                    Merely because it HAS a thinking component, I'd say that emotional mystics  would always find it "too intellectual". It's because of what they do with what they read, converting it into mere intellectualism, because they cannot link any will forces with their use of the mind. Doing so is the reason for the artistic or creative component of the modern spiritual Path.

                Dr. Starman
                http://www.DrStarman.net
              • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                pacbay@attbi.com writes, implying all anthroposophists have something wrong with them because they hold fast to some
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 3, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  pacbay@... writes, implying all anthroposophists have something wrong with them because they hold fast to some definite, specific principles we discussed, and need to become what in his judgement is better :
                  I would suggest turning the hose on some of the concepts you and others may have about AP and rinse away the dust. AP means the wisdom of Man or that wisdom coming from the inner spiritual efforts of man. Wisdom is neither static or a hard rock that resists water. Water softens that which has been hardened.

                  I responded:
                  Knowledge of the Higher
                  Worlds, Chapter One:

                  "It is not easy, at first, to believe that feelings like reverence and respect have anything to do with cognition. This is due to the fact that we are inclined to set cognition aside as a faculty by itself — one that stands in no relation to what otherwise occurs in the soul. In so thinking we do not bear in mind that it is the soul which exercises the faculty of cognition; and feelings are for the soul what food is for the body. If we give the body stones in place of bread, its activity will cease. It is the same with the soul. Veneration, homage, devotion are like nutriment making it healthy and strong, especially strong for the activity of cognition. Disrespect, antipathy, underestimation of what deserves recognition, all exert a paralyzing and withering effect on this faculty of cognition. "


                  His Response:
                  " Truth always rises higher than belief and veneration of something that one does not really know or may be wrong and create insecurity if examined...
                   
                  Steiner: "....spiritual perceptions are not infallible....
                  It would be disastrous for Spiritual Science if he who cannot yet see into the spiritual world were obliged to accept on blind faith what he is told."


                  *******This is getting boring, because you posted the same old quotes and I made the same response once before, and you clearly are not listening. But some others on the list may be-- -- -- so, here is Steiner once again in his book Theosophy, final chapter:

                  To him who asks, “How can I gain personal knowledge of the higher truths of spiritual science?” the answer must be given, “Begin by making yourself acquainted with what is communicated by others concerning such knowledge.” Should he reply, “I wish to see for myself; I do not wish to know anything about what others have seen,” one must answer, “It is in the very assimilating of the communications of others that the first step towards personal knowledge consists.” If he then should answer, “Then I am forced to have blind faith to begin with,” one can only reply, “In regard to something communicated it is not a case of belief or unbelief, but merely of an unprejudiced assimilation of what one hears.” The true spiritual researcher never speaks with the expectation of meeting blind faith in what he says. He merely says, “I have experienced this in the spiritual regions of existence and I narrate my experiences.” He knows also that the reception of these experiences by another and the permeation of his thoughts with such an account are living forces making for spiritual development.


                    *******
                  So the "blind faith" objection is fully answered -- -- --it's not having blind faith in the communications of spiritual science to THINK them, instead of arguing with them and refusing to take them in to your soul. So, OK, Jeff, to you Anthroposophy is something which " one does not really know or may be wrong ", and so you refuse to work with it but instead hold it apart from you. That's too bad-- -- -- but it's not the case with others of us here on a discussion list for Anthroposophy. We know it, and know that it's not wrong, so we're not in the same situation as you. You can try to imply that you know better than Rudolf Steiner and that all of us may be wrong all you want, but it shows only that you have not committed to it and so don't know it from the inside.

                      There is an enormous difference between saying Dr. Steiner was not infallible-- -- -- which is a straw man, as no one here has ever said that, Jeff, as you well know -- -- -- and using that to assert that ANY statements by ANYONE saying ANYTHING (including things flatly opposed to spiritual scientific principles), should be accepted as part of an exaggerated idea of 'tolerance'. Any of us taking up this spiritual path can prove things Steiner said from our own experience. I guess your tactic is to make it appear as if only Rudolf Steiner had these experiences because you are unable to, but this is quite false. Anyone can do so who uses the correct methods.

                      You've once again provided an example of "undervaluing of what deserves recognition"; perhaps next time you could say something specific about a modern spiritual path besides contempt for anything definite Rudolph Steiner had to say about it. Instead of a negative,  saying what a modern spiritual path is not (which is, anything definite and specific), perhaps you could provide us with a positive, meaning what you think it IS.
                      Unless the the only motive is to bog down discussion because you don't like the direction it might go in, in which case I will no longer respond.

                  Dr. Starman

                  http://www.DrStarman.net

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