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

Re: reply to post on Wendt

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    To Stephen Clarke: {Robert had written:} { IMO Joel Wendt is crazy, and he is no friend of Anthroposophy besides. No, I don t mean that he is a little
    Message 1 of 64 , Sep 21, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      To Stephen Clarke:

      {Robert had written:}

      {> > IMO Joel Wendt is crazy, and he is no
      friend of Anthroposophy > besides. No, I don't
      mean that he is a little > neurotic like so
      many of us; I mean he is > psychotic,
      delusional, nutty-as-a-fruitcake.}

      Stephen wrote:

      >>OK. Serious charges, such as these, deserve
      to be taken seriously - so off the bat I won't
      call _you_ crazy for making them. Fair
      enough?

      >>Now Joel Wendt has devoted a large amount of
      his own time and energy to generating a large
      amount of material directed to both internal
      analysis and outward development of the
      Anthroposophical Society and of Steiner's
      impulses. You have posted selections which you
      feel supports [sic] your claims against him,
      and I have read them, both as they were
      originally published, and also recently as you
      posted them. I think I know how you must feel,
      to come up against someone whom you feel is
      betraying the mission of Rudolf Steiner and his
      Society; I myself feel the same way about other
      individuals and have done my best to make my
      cases. So these things need to be discussed and
      the issues aired. I have no doubt or qualms
      about that.

      >>However, there are certain conditions which
      are necessary in order to proceed with a
      fruitful engagement. Ad hominum [sic] attacks,
      in general, are invalid.<<

      Robert writes:

      I already addressed this point in my first
      post. You snipped the relevant portion; here
      it is again:

      "Some people -- who have not studied Joel over
      the years, who have seen only his 'good
      behavior', and who (unlike myself) have not had
      personal experience with a tricky, devious
      addict -- might not be on guard against such
      insanity, and thus need to be warned. When
      dealing with Joel Wendt one is entering a
      Twilight Zone of madness, and he is not just
      crazy; he is 'crazy-making'. One needs to be
      on guard just as one would be when entering a
      psychiatric ward and talking with the
      schizophrenics there. This particular inmate
      may assume a posture of knowledgeableness and
      spew out tons and tons of convoluted pseudo-
      Anthro-speak, but he is still Loony Toons, and
      one needs to remember that in order to protect
      one's own sanity.

      "It is just human nature (for most of us) to
      want to give the other guy the benefit of the
      doubt, and even (for some of us) to give undue
      credence to those who speak fluently and with
      an air of authority or confidence on abstruse
      subjects. And it is just human nature to be
      more wary than usual if one is aware that one
      is listening to a madman. Still, it is
      logically possible that even a madman might
      occasionally say something true, but one is
      just letting oneself in for a lot of trouble if
      one gives him any credence without first
      checking every assertion down to the last
      detail. In this case, one would surely be
      endangering one's understanding of
      Anthroposophy, and maybe even one's own mental
      health.

      "And in this case, where the 'abstruse
      subjects' include spiritual science, the mental
      health of the speaker is an even more important
      consideration than is usual. Consider this
      'Steiner-said' from *Occult Science*:

      "'Anyone who, from the beginning, does not
      consider making a healthy judgment the
      foundation of his spiritual training will
      develop in himself supersensible faculties with
      which he perceives the spiritual world
      inexactly and incorrectly. His spiritual organs
      of perception will, so to speak, unfold
      incorrectly. Just as one cannot see correctly
      in the sense world with eyes that are faulty
      and diseased, one cannot perceive correctly
      with spiritual organs that have not been
      constructed upon the foundation of a healthy
      capacity for judgment. - Whoever makes the
      start with an immoral soul condition elevates
      himself to the spiritual world in a way by
      which his spiritual perception becomes
      stupefied and clouded. He stands confronting
      the supersensible worlds like someone observing
      the sensory world in a stupor. Such a person
      will, to be sure, make no important
      statements.'"

      -- To expand just a little: Besides those
      psychological and esoteric factors in my
      justification, there is a further consideration
      that has to do with the meanings of words. It
      is true enough, in an abstract sense, that *ad
      hominem* references to the author of an
      argument, a line of reasoning, are not
      logically probative as to the truth, falseness,
      validity, or invalidity of the argument (except
      perhaps in those rare cases in which the
      argument refers to the author in some way).
      However, this logical principle assumes that
      the meaning of the argument is clear as it
      stands, that the meaning is independent of the
      person of the speaker. But the same words
      spoken by different people, with different
      intentions, in different situations, can have
      different meanings. An e-list, like any
      conversation, is partly, maybe even sometimes
      mostly, an *ad hominem* activity. It is a
      field of interaction for people, not only of
      ideas. And the meanings of the words that the
      people use vary to some extent according to who
      is speaking, in what situation, with what
      intentions, etc.

      To illustrate this point, I will take just a
      couple of snips from Joel's post that started
      this thread. (This is only a loose fit; Joel
      here is not strictly presenting a "line of
      reasoning", but a string of assertions. This
      example will perhaps illuminate my point while
      remaining in the present context. Still, my
      general point about the variability of meanings
      will become clear, I hope.) Joel wrote:

      "Now we are at the beginning of a new Century
      of anthroposophical activity, and again there
      are those with experiencial [sic] familiarity
      to Steiner's own path (the epistemologies) who
      are able to think out of full inner freedom.
      (We could go back into the 20th Century and
      find the same rhythms (1979, 86, 93, 2000) as
      preparation within the soul life of several
      individuals) Yet, the same problem remains -
      will anthroposophists recognize the new
      clair-thinking potential developed by Steiner
      as a Path quite different in many respects from
      that taught in Knowledge of Higher Worlds?"

      " . . . .

      "These are questions currently being worked
      with in the Anthroposophical Society in
      America, via the activity of those who have
      been members of the Uriel Study Group and those
      who, inspired by Carl Stegmann, have diligently
      made the effort to penetrate, with the new
      clair-thinking, the Mystery of America.

      "As these impulses manifest on the more
      material social plane of human existence, they
      will take a quite different form from those
      social process by which Steiner worked
      (lectures etc.) (surprise, surprise - the
      'teaching' of anthroposophy moves on to others
      in this new Century).

      "The times are not only quite different, for
      the center of activity will not be in Europe,
      but in America . . . ."

      Robert continues:

      Now, a newcomer Anthro here might, I would
      suppose, blink a few times and wonder exactly
      what these startling revelations might mean: --
      The new world center of Anthroposophy for this
      century in America? Who are these "others" who
      are to be these new "'teachers'"? And where
      are these revelations coming from anyway; how
      would Joel be in a position to know all this?
      He doesn't say. . . . Hm.

      -- Perhaps this newcomer might recall that
      someone said something about Joel being
      devious. Noticing that Joel obviously was
      holding something back and speaking in
      circumlocutions, the newbie might start to get
      a little wary. And recalling that someone said
      something about Joel being a megalomaniac, that
      he even believes himself, in some way, to be
      the present incarnation of the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva, our greenhorn might start to put
      two and two together: -- A new world teacher?
      The Maitreya? Is Joel talking about himself?
      He does live in America and is always going on
      about the Mystery of America, isn't he? Hm. --

      And so our friend might notice this statement
      from another of Joel's recent posts: "In 2004,
      in the culmination of work that began within
      anthroposophy back in 1979, I was able to write
      about our political and social existence in an
      entirely new way." Two and two are starting to
      look a lot like four: -- 1979? A turning point
      for Joel. So Joel was most likely alluding
      primarily to himself in an oblique way in the
      passage about the new teachers. A devious
      megalomaniac would be fully capable of doing
      that. So now I see what Joel was really
      saying: "The new world center for
      Anthroposophy for the 21st Century is in
      America, for I am in America; and I am the new
      world-teacher, for I am the Maitreya".

      -- Thus, hopefully, my imaginary newcomer,
      being forewarned, is able to see that those
      words had a special meaning when spoken by
      Joel. He can translate the devious
      circumlocutions of Joel-speak into plain
      English, and thus he is in a better position to
      evaluate Joel's assertions than he would
      otherwise have been.

      (And, still hopefully, he might go on to ask
      such questions as: -- Steiner's own path? How
      could Joel be in a position to say what exactly
      Steiner's path was or wasn't? Well, this
      contention is coming from someone who believes
      himself to be the Maitreya, for crying out
      loud. Maybe I should be extra cautious about
      giving any weight to that notion, hold back,
      and dig into this question carefully, live with
      it for a while, before buying into Joel's ideas
      . . . .)

      -- And so on. Words can have very unusual
      meanings when they are spoken by someone who is
      in a very unusual mental state and acting in an
      unusual way. *Ad hominem* considerations can
      be very relevant to the evaluation of those
      meanings.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>If, indeed, someone is batty enough for the
      imprecise term of "crazy" to apply (not very
      precise, although the term gets the point
      across), then such insanity will show up in the
      faulty logic, progression, associations, etc.,
      of the presentation itself . . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      Well, not necessarily in each instance. As I
      said, it is logically possible that a madman
      might say something true. A mathematician
      might be perfectly loopy outside his study and
      still derive valid, "elegant" proofs.

      But, as I approached the point in my Steiner-
      quote, the mental health of a putative
      spiritual researcher is a primary consideration
      as to the reliability of the results. Just as
      the good working order of the data-gathering
      system is a consideration as to the reliability
      of the results of physical research. (But
      still, as the saying goes, even a broken clock
      is right twice a day.)

      Stephen wrote:

      >>. . . and it will be far easier . . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      Not really. It is excruciating to try to
      untangle Joel's tangled thoughts. And there
      are so many, many of them.

      Stephen continued:

      >>. . . and more direct to challenge that
      content of the material than to rest any kind
      of case . . . .<<

      Robert writes:

      The case is not "rested": I issue the caution;
      I leave it to others to do their own
      investigations of the cases, if they wish, if
      they pay any attention to Joel.

      Stephen again:

      >>. . . upon the invisible internal state of
      Mr. Wendt. One which can only be surmise on
      your part, you must admit.<<

      Robert writes:

      Not just a random surmise; by their fruits
      shall ye know them.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>On the other hand, what Wendt has written is
      out there in plain view for all of us to
      evaluate for ourselves - no guesswork.<<

      Robert writes:

      I do indeed hope that all will really
      *evaluate*, with a gimlet eye; if any take it
      seriously at all.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>So let us leave aside the problematical and
      irresolvable matter of what might be going on
      inside of Joel, or why, and look at the
      evidence which must stand or fall on its own
      merits.<<

      Robert writes:

      I have made repeated efforts to engage Joel in
      dialogue about the "own merits" of several
      questions, at the least. You were a witness to
      some of these attempts on at least one e-list,
      if you were reading the posts. It was simply
      impossible for me to have a sane conversation
      with him; he kept resorting to some kind of
      evasive maneuvering. I have already spent a
      substantial amount of my time and my mental
      energy on Joel Wendt and his ideas, and it's
      all a *pain*, to put it mildly. And on an e-
      list it's even more *work*, more than I can
      keep up with usually; more than I want to keep
      up with. I'd rather not be bothered with Joel
      and his *stuff* again, and I have jumped in
      here only reluctantly. So, for the present at
      least, I have tried only to alert people to the
      danger, so that they might be extra careful in
      evaluating the "merits" through their own
      efforts.

      -- Here's my answer to the nub of your
      argument: As I said, I am essentially a lurker
      here, and I don't want to be a regular
      participant. I do not want now to get actively
      involved in e-lists generally. I have found
      from experience that I keep getting *too*
      involved, that I keep biting off more than I
      can chew, that they take up far too much of my
      time and mental energy, and I'm too slow to
      keep up anyway. So now I just lurk on a couple
      of lists, and my private email keeps me about
      as busy as I want to be with virtual
      socializing. And I especially don't want to
      get involved (again) in (more) e-debates with
      or about Joel and his bizarre thinking. I
      would like to hope that I have already served
      enough time in that purgatory. -- You say that
      I don't go into Joel's ideas in detail. OK, I
      don't. My purpose was to issue a warning, an
      alert to danger -- not to analyze each of
      Joel's many, many assertions. I do report a
      very generalized summary of my encounters with
      Joel and his thinking. The readers can take my
      report as being my opinion (based on
      experience) and test it for themselves in their
      own encounters, if any, with Joel, with his
      maneuvering, with his ideas. My main concern
      was that people should be alerted to the
      special need to really *test*, with the utmost
      skepticism and rigor, Joel's assertions and
      actions. I give a warning that madness is
      present in or through Joel, and I hope that the
      readers will be alerted to the need to protect
      themselves from it. (And I did present *some*
      of the evidence of madness.)

      Stephen wrote:

      >>This may or may not reflect back upon or give
      insights on the hows and whats of its
      origination and its originator, but this will
      ultimately be beside the point.

      >>Unless your point is to attack the person of
      Joel Wendt.<<

      Robert writes:

      I don't think that exposure and unmasking
      amount to attacking. They could even be
      beneficial to the "person" if received in a
      therapeutic spirit (as unlikely as that seems).
      But again, the possible effect on this "person"
      was not my main concern. My main concern was
      for his possible "victims"; but for this
      concern, I would not have posted my warning.

      As for my attitude toward Joel personally, it's
      this: Yes, he pushes my buttons, especially by
      his tricks and his arrogance. I don't like
      tricky people generally, and I don't like
      bullies. Maybe I do have a karmic thing with
      him personally. And I don't like his twisted
      thinking; sometimes it makes my mind hurt. (OK,
      in a way that's not personal; but as a man
      thinketh in his heart, so he is.) And I don't
      like the way he distorts and undermines
      Anthroposophy stealthily, deviously. The open
      opponents, the Dan Dugans of this world, don't
      upset me nearly as much. Again, I have made
      futile attempts to engage Joel in dialogue.
      But the futility is insuperable; as I said to
      him the last time (on another list): I can't
      do anything with him, but maybe, sometimes, I
      can do something about him. -- You might say
      that dislike or anger are subjective and
      reactive. That may be so, but sometimes
      revulsion can be a very healthy "reaction": it
      can alert one to presence of evil. But I do
      not live wholly in my involuntary emotions; in
      my better moments I can and do control my
      feelings to a considerable degree. I can wish
      well to people I don't like, and wish it with
      balmy, healing feeling. And I do wish healing
      to Joel Wendt; I wish he would be a sane and
      truthful human being. -- There it is, for
      whatever it may be worth.

      -- Besides the relevance I indicated above,
      Joel's "person" might be a relevant
      consideration in another way. Such as if (in
      the unlikely event that) one were seriously
      considering supporting him for political
      office. And relevant all the more for Anthros:
      He has implied (in his relentlessly devious
      way) that he considers himself to be the
      rightful leader of the Anthro Society in the
      US, and he does seem to be getting more active
      in the Society. Perhaps he will soon be a
      candidate for a responsible office in the ASiA?
      Would his sanity and the purity of his
      Anthroposophy then be relevant considerations?
      -- I think so.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>You are certainly free to do so, and as this
      is an open forum in which many people do this
      to each other as a matter of course, there is
      really no effective rebuttal. Except to say
      that I know Joel personally and I do not agree
      with your evaluation of him. But this is a
      matter of non-matching opinions and it is nuts
      to argue about opinions, so I'll just tell you
      mine here and leave it at that.<<

      Robert writes:

      But there is evidence for my "opinion", and I
      made some of it plain to see.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>On to substance. I will snip:

      {> Sometimes his cuckoo bird does come into the
      > open. For instance, a couple of years ago he
      > ran for President of the USA...just after he
      more > recently moved to Prescott, Arizona, he
      ran for > mayor there. And of course that
      campaign > quickly evaporated too.}

      >>This is evidence of nothing more than that he
      did not become president. Anything else is your
      surmise. Many times people run for office in
      order to get certain views out there into the
      public forum. Even if they do not get the most
      votes, they might feel vindicated if those
      issues make some headway. Sometimes just the
      doing of an absurd gesture is a "win" if the
      existential gesture is grand enough.
      Maybe....<<

      Robert writes:

      But this is evidence of his megalomania and his
      grasp (or lack of grasp) on reality. He
      thought he really might win; he was going to
      "move the world". Remember? -- And if one is
      aware that he (in some way) believes himself to
      be George Washington come-back-again, the
      picture comes into better focus.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>At any rate this has nothing to do with his
      anthroposophical ideas, and political life
      presumably wouldn't matter to you anyway if you
      did not disagree with his anthroposophy <<

      Robert writes:

      I would definitely be worried if, *per*
      improbability, Joel were elected to high public
      office. I wouldn't want even an Anthro nut
      case to have that red telephone on his desk.

      Stephen wrote:

      >>Which are not involved with this item.
      Next:<<

      {> Joel's megalomania is even > more profound
      than appears just on such > surfaces. He
      believes that he is the > reincarnation of
      George Washington (and of > Clara Barton).
      More, he believes that George > Washington was
      an incarnation of the Maitreya > Bodhisattva,
      and, yes, that he, Joel, is the > present
      incarnation of the Maitreya. I'm not > joking.
      Of course, he doesn't come out and say > all
      this plainly; he is much too devious > (and/or
      confused) to do that. But for someone > (such
      as myself) who has slogged through his >
      website and observed him on e-lists over a few
      > years, the evidence is plainly there.}

      >>Well, Robert, if it is so plainly there, why
      do you not quote or cite it?

      >>You expended quite a bit of effort - and
      engaged quite a bit of mine - in order to have
      me read some selections from Joel which
      presumably support this major contention of
      yours, yet nowhere in that material does Joel
      say, or to my eyes, imply, this. You say he
      does, but he doesn't - or maybe he kind of does
      but not clearly enough so you have to tell us
      that he does. This is really not good enough,
      Robert. You must do better; the coherence of
      the proof must be commensurate with the
      seriousness of the charge. To the extent that
      you fail to make your case, this fault rebounds
      against your own credibility and intentions.
      It's a tricky thing to take on someone like
      this: you've got to be able to pull it off or
      it will blow up in your face.<<

      Robert writes:

      I did supply a major portion of the evidence,
      as you acknowledge. So, by *not quote or cite*
      I presume you must mean that I didn't walk you
      though the whole story step by step? And since
      I didn't, you can't connect the dots (to mix a
      metaphor) and see *any* of the picture?
      Nothing at all? Zero? Zip? Nada?

      As I said, Joel is devious, and those documents
      are prime examples of his deviousness. The
      pieces of the jigsaw puzzle (to mix in another
      metaphor) are scattered all over the floor, but
      I at least gave you the box-top so that you
      could see the picture, even as
      surrealist/cubist/Picasso-esque as it might be.
      No, I didn't fit all of the little pieces
      together for you, one by one.

      But the story of Joel's identity as
      Washington/Barton/Maitreya hangs together with
      the "walk-in" story, so one should take them
      all together.

      Stephen again:

      {> I doubt that Joel has a > self, an "ego", a
      core-of-personality that is > unified and
      "individuated" enough even to have > a
      consistent "belief", such as his identity as >
      the Maitreya. He is a profoundly > un-
      integrated, dis-integrated personality. He >
      contradicts himself so often, so freely, both >
      in word and deed, that it appears to me that he
      > may be a "multiple" of some kind -- or maybe
      > rather he is "possessed" or "obsessed".
      Again, > for someone who has observed him over
      time, > there (almost?) does (do?) seem to be
      more than > one of him. And on occasion he has
      almost come > out and said as much.}

      >>As above, Robert. You state your opinion,
      which you certainly have a right to have and
      express. Again, I have a different opinion of
      his internal state. But if you are going to
      make such serious charges in public, you really
      have to do better than tell us, in very
      complicated fashion, that you simply don't like
      him (and his ideas).<<

      {> The gist of the matter > is that he
      (sometimes?) considers himself to be > a "man
      who became someone else" -- that in the > early
      thirties of the age of his body, he >
      incarnated and displaced the body's previous >
      resident. And again, this incarnating spirit >
      is not just any "walk-in", but is the Maitreya
      > Himself. But on other occasions he speaks as
      > though he is identical with the spirit who
      was > born over thirty years earlier in
      Montana. > > So maybe it would be more accurate
      to say that > one of his "alters" believes that
      it is the > Maitreya, sometimes. Or did at the
      times that > his body's fingers typed certain
      passages of > his copious writings. Whatever;
      Joel is far to [sic] > elusive to pin down more
      than that. For this > amateur psychiatrist
      anyway.}

      >>Robert, we are in potentially very deep
      waters here. If we are to discuss such matters,
      there must first of all be a supportive
      context.<<

      Robert shakes his head:

      ??? -- If by *context* you mean evidence, I did
      bring in quite a lot of it, four documents.
      And there's a lot more "context" out there,
      scattered around the Internet. If you follow
      Joel as closely as I think you probably do, you
      must have seen a good deal of it. Seen without
      noticing, apparently. Did you notice, for
      instance, this little hint Joel slipped into
      his new "Castle" story about the recent Anthro
      conference: ". . . the foolish Wizard {i.e.
      Joel}, aided by Divine Providence, who had been
      one of his main teachers over the 33 years of
      his incarnation . . . ."? Joel, his body, was
      born in 1940, wasn't he/it? -- It fits into the
      picture. There is plenty of evidence, all over
      the place, if you would only notice it. Did
      you happen to catch that sly little hint he
      dropped in the "Constitution" group about his
      having had a previous incarnation connected
      with the founding of the USA?

      OK; I'll try to walk you though some of the
      "context":

      I'll start by asking you to look in a naïve way
      at the first story from *The Way of the Fool*.
      For now, I will only call attention to the (to
      put it mildly) confusion in this story. There
      is the obvious self-contraction in the concept
      of *a man becoming someone else*. ( . . . if
      taken literally, that is. -- By itself, out of
      the larger context, the reader might grant some
      poetic license; it's just a story, after all.
      But in the context we are entering, this story
      is clearly something more than poetic whimsy.)
      In the story, even after the "man" had become
      "someone else", he is referenced as though he
      were the same, original "man". And Joel
      introduces the possibility of "madness".

      Now, a quick, naïve look at the second story --
      the one that Joel says is "from my biography".
      Note that this is another story of a man (in
      this case the author, Joel) who "became someone
      else", at least in a metaphorical sense. A
      person's memories are what gives him the
      "knowledge" of "who he is"; without them one
      doesn't know his own identity, as is shown in
      cases of amnesia. To possess someone's
      memories is, in a sense, to have his
      "identity". -- Note that Joel says that his
      "friend" "crossed over". Normally, we might
      take *crossed over* to mean *died*; but Joel
      does not actually say *died*. So, there is
      more than a little ambiguity in this story,
      which one might well suspect to conceal
      something, something that Joel does not wish to
      say directly. -- One might also naïvely suspect
      that the first story, also about "a man who
      became somebody else", might also conceal
      something that the author does not wish to say
      plainly.

      And I will also note the words with which Joel
      introduces the first of his "stories" in *The
      Way of the Fool*: (I didn't put this in
      Document #4, but I presume you read the
      original.)

      "At the same time, the reader should be able to
      find here some indications (stories) describing
      occasionally how a certain understanding came
      to me during the course of my biography."

      Although the first story I quoted is not
      explicitly attributed by Joel to his own
      "biography", I note that the first story I
      quoted is in the same format as the first,
      biographical story in Joel's *Fool*, and
      implicitly under the same introduction just
      quoted. Just on this basis of these clues, one
      might suspect that the first story quoted here
      is also about Joel. If it were, then the
      second story would fit into this suspicion,
      with the "man who became somebody else" being
      Joel's "friend" -- not the present Joel in the
      usual sense, but the past "Joel" who was born
      in Montana over thirty years before the time of
      the first story.

      -- The other three documents concern mainly the
      "Bodhisattva question". Now, obviously, this
      question is a deeply esoteric one; only a
      spiritual investigator of the highest caliber
      would be able to give any answers about it on
      his own authority. Indeed, Joel goes farther
      and makes this very dubious assertion in
      "Perspective":

      ". . . regardless of all the gossip and
      speculations of others, there is only one
      personality who actually knows anything
      concretely real about the bodhisattva
      question."

      The obvious inference is that Joel is implying
      that this "one personality" is the Bodhisattva
      himself. Yet Joel, after decrying
      "speculation" in these matters, also gives what
      he says he believes to be "satisfactory
      answers" to some of these deeply esoteric
      questions. Here the obvious question for the
      reader is: How would Joel be able to give so
      many putative "satisfactory answers" to such
      questions unless he believed himself to be this
      "one personality"? -- This is crucial; Joel
      leads his readers to the inference: If no one
      knows but the Bodhisattva, and Joel knows, then
      Joel must be the Bodhisattva.

      But he does seem to be aware that his readers
      might be asking questions:

      "Perspective": "It is certainly a legitimate
      question of the reader, how I came to know, or
      to think, what is written below. I'll leave
      that question aside, and urge that the reader
      just consider the following merely as a story,
      that they are free to ignore or give some
      credence to, as they wish."

      This is a blatant evasion, sure to provoke
      "speculation". He keeps trying to say it and
      not-say it at the same time. Why should anyone
      "give credence to" a "story" about such weighty
      matters, unless the "story" is non-fictional?
      And why should anyone consider it to be non-
      fictional unless it has some epistemic
      justification?

      He seems to be aware, but here he brushes aside
      such questions without even a gesture toward
      giving any real answers. Instead, he tries to
      characterize his assertions as "merely a story"
      which might just as well be ignored as taken
      seriously. But does he really expect his
      readers to believe that he might be merely
      "making up" a "story" and telling it for no
      particular reason? Does he expect his readers
      to believe it to be less than very likely that
      he takes his "story" seriously and that he has
      some serious purpose in trying to get it a
      hearing? And if he takes the "story"
      seriously, is it at all likely that he would do
      so except on the basis of what he considers to
      be some kind of cognitive process? And so his
      readers can hardly not strongly suspect that he
      does have in mind some cognitive process, but
      he so disrespects his readers that he tells us
      openly that he will not disclose this process
      to us. Obviously, it is almost certain that he
      is concealing something important from his
      readers and that this "something" has to do
      with his "reasons" for composing and telling
      his "story", which he almost certainly does not
      consider to be fictional, and which he does not
      really wish his readers to take as fiction.
      And so, obviously, he is being devious -- and
      it is pretty sure that this deviousness will
      provoke "speculation" by his readers, the kind
      of "speculation" that he decries.

      Might his readers therefore be even more
      justified in suspecting that Joel is concealing
      the fact that he believes himself to be that
      Bodhisattva? But of course he has already
      shown that he expects the reader to be thinking
      along such lines:

      "Perspective": "Further, it is not the purpose
      of this article to suggest an alternative as to
      the possible identity of this individual, in
      this incarnation, nor even to suggest the
      author of this essay as a candidate. This is so
      even though most of the content of this article
      is derived from the author's most intimate
      personal experiences."

      And here also he provokes the reader to more
      "speculation". Why, the reader could hardly
      avoid asking, would Joel's "most intimate
      personal experiences" have any supposed
      relevance to the present identity of the
      Maitreya Bodhisattva, unless Joel does in fact
      consider himself to be a "candidate"? Such
      "speculation" could hardly be avoided, since
      Joel is obviously being devious about his
      beliefs and intentions. -- What good reason
      could there be for "deriving" his theories from
      his own experience? Is it not a perfectly
      reasonable presumption that the incarnation of
      a Bodhisattva would be very different in nature
      from Joel's experiences? Is it not therefore a
      perfectly natural suspicion that Joel is doing
      this "derivation" just because he believes
      himself to be the Bodhisattva?

      But *devious* is hardly an adequate word; Joel
      is trying to conceal himself, while at the same
      time revealing himself in a way sure to provoke
      "speculation" that he considers himself to be
      this Bodhisattva. This self-contradiction to
      the point of . . . What? Insanity? At the
      least, this is evidence of a severely un-
      integrated personality.

      More: after decrying "spiritual gossip" and
      "pointless" "speculation", he states his
      supposed intentions thusly:

      "Perspective": ". . . it is one of the points
      of this essay to put forward, into the ongoing
      speculative oral traditions of the
      anthroposophical movement, a counter-myth to
      those sterile and confusing opinions currently
      in place. The point of this essay is basically
      to raise questions, not to provide answers."

      Apparently, a "counter-myth" of deliberately
      hidden derivation and which is allegedly not
      intended to "provide answers" is supposed to be
      less "sterile and confusing" than the
      "speculations" and "opinions currently in
      place"!? And this "counter-myth" which
      obviously points to Joel as the likely
      "candidate" for the present Maitreya
      Bodhisattva is somehow supposed to be an
      improvement on "spiritual gossip"? How does
      Joel apparently expect a "myth" to "raise
      questions" but not "raise" "speculations"?

      Obviously, Joel's essay is incoherent and self-
      contradictory at the outset. Obviously, he has
      a hidden agenda -- or agendas, however self-
      contradictory they may be. But this is only
      the beginning.

      -- There are plenty of other clues that Joel
      considers himself to be the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva.

      For instance, there are the correspondences in
      the timing of the incarnations he attributes to
      the Maitreya Bodhisattva and to himself (or to
      his body).

      From "biographical materials on Joel A. Wendt"
      (I didn't post this, but I assume you have seen
      it; if not, it is readily available on his
      website): "I was born in Great Falls, Montana,
      December 23rd, 1940."

      From "Process": ". . . (the first ego [that
      was to leave the body around age 30-33] having
      incarnated in 1940), and that the [Maitreya]
      bodhisattva was already hovering over this
      first ego, and completely identified with it,
      helping to guide it in the final stages of the
      preparation for the moment of exchange."

      From "Listening to the World Song" (I didn't
      post this either, but again, it is readily
      available): "In my [Joel's] early thirties
      (about 1971), I underwent an unusual
      psychological change, following which certain
      previously unknown talents began to emerge."

      "Process": ". . . this [Maitreya Bodhisattva]
      individuality (who was in the spiritual world
      until about 1970) . . . ."

      "Review": "This [Maitreya] individuality was
      not due to incarnate at the beginning of the
      20th Century, but to incarnate in the last
      third."

      "Process": "Moreover, it is my understanding
      that the this[20th]-century work of the
      bodhisattva is being done at the End of the
      Century - at the Turn of the Millennium . . .
      ."

      -- Thus, according to Joel's account, the
      timings of the birth of the contemporary
      Maitreya Bodhisattva's body and of the
      incarnation of his Ego correspond exactly with
      the birth of the Wendt-body and of his "unusual
      psychological change".

      And there is correspondence not only in the
      time but also in the place -- California:

      "Perspective": "Were the bodhisattva, during
      this period of personality reconstruction [i.e.
      immediately after the unconscious incarnation
      of the Bodhisattva-ego], to have participated
      in a psychological milieux [sic] such as
      existed in California in the 1970's, a quite
      exoteric explaination [sic] of the changes
      would then be available to explain them."

      "biographical materials": "Tina and I divorced
      and then reconciled, deciding to move to
      California to start all over again, which we
      did in August of 1969. We had another child,
      Jennifer, in October of 1970 . . . ."

      -- And there are also unmistakable similarities
      in the Ego-replacement stories Joel attributes
      to the Bodhisattva and to himself:

      "Perspective": "The incarnation takes place
      during an apparent period of sleep. The
      excarnating ego goes to sleep, the astral and
      ego bodies separate, and during this time
      period the change of egos is made. Were a
      quite sensitive child to live in the household
      at the time of this transition, they might be
      awakened by what appears as a the movement of a
      great wind through the home, followed by a
      immense dark shadow. The wind is the
      incarnating spirit, and the shadow is the new
      double that needs accompany the bodhisattva in
      life."

      Also: from "Process", inserted into the
      discussion of the 20th Century incarnation of
      the Maitreya Bodhisattva, for no apparent
      reason:

      "Imagine a young girl, about age six, awakened
      in the night by a great wind blowing through
      her room, drawing her from sleep so that in her
      awakened state she next sees a huge shadow move
      past her room and down the hall to her father's
      bedroom. The effect of this experience is so
      powerful, that the young girl now begins to
      routinely lucid dream, until the onset of
      puberty.

      "The father knows nothing of this experience,
      although in later years, more awake to his own
      role, he hears a Christian Community priest say
      that certain 'genuises' [sic] have a retarded
      moon sphere archi [sic] as a double, because
      such individualities need a powerful shadow to
      accompany them in life, and provide the needed
      balance to the incarnated spirit's capacities.

      "Many years later, the father and the daughter
      have become spiritually close, in fact so close
      that unknown to each other they both entered
      the Rite of Catholic Initiation of Adults at
      the same time, a continent apart. As part of
      this closeness the daughter reveals the
      awakening at age six and the father his own
      understanding of the change of egos which
      occured [sic] in his early thirties. After some
      discussion they realize that the "wind" was the
      new ego, and the shadow was the new double that
      accompanied the new ego."

      This is of course essentially the same story
      that Joel wrote in *Fool*. The "father" in
      this second story is obviously Joel himself,
      since (besides the circumstantial similarities
      in the stories) Joel also says of himself in
      the text of *Fool*: ". . . why I was becoming
      a Catholic (I did later tell the story of this
      dream to the priest that oversaw my experience
      of the Rite of Catholic Initiation of Adults .
      . . ."

      (This last correspondence also proves, as if
      any more were needed, that the story of the
      "the man who became someone else" is about
      Joel, either as "the man" or as the "someone
      else", or both.)

      Compare this assertion from "Perspective":

      "Here is one of the previously unknown
      remarkable facts concerning this [Maitreya
      Bodhisattva's] incarnation process. A new
      double must be involved, due to the fact of the
      qualitative talents of the future Maitreya. A
      being on the level of a retarded Moon Archi
      [sic] attaches itself in order that the right
      balances may be maintained."

      Thus, Joel's assertion about the putative Moon
      Arche as the Bodhisattva's "double" corresponds
      with the man in the story (that is, Joel
      himself, the "genius") and equates the "shadow"
      with a Moon Arche as the double of the
      "genius".

      And therefore it seems undeniable that Joel
      forces the putative pattern of the
      Bodhisattva's incarnation to fit his own life
      story (as he interprets it). Why this forcing,
      unless Joel considers himself to be the
      Bodhisattva -- what other reason could there
      be?

      But there is even more forcing of the stories
      to fit. Consider that the "man who became
      someone else" initially experienced depression,
      a paralysis of thinking, and the danger of
      "madness".

      Compare this from "Review"":

      "This [Bodhisattva] individuality sacrifices
      his spiritual awareness in every incarnation,
      believing in the beginning of each incarnation
      that he is the individual whose sheaths have
      been taken over (remember, if you know this
      material, that this bodhisattva does not
      incarnate at birth, but only into the sheaths
      of someone already 30 to 33 years old)."

      It might be well at this point to ask why Joel
      asserts that the incoming Bodhisattva must be
      deceived about his own identity. Does Joel
      bring forward some "indications" (to use some
      Anthro-speak) from Steiner, or even from
      Tomberg, on this point? No, he does not;
      Joel's assertion on this deeply esoteric point
      just appears, seemingly from nowhere. But of
      course it does come from somewhere; and since
      Joel does not tell his readers where, they are
      left to puzzle out this question for
      themselves.

      But Joel does say more on this subject, more of
      which the reader is left to wonder about the
      source. Consider this, from "Perspective":

      "What we call the earthly personality, a
      collection of habits of self image and so
      forth, this picture (mental image as noted in
      Steiner's Philsophy [sic] of Freedom)
      fractures, for it requires the presence of the
      excarnating ego to hold it together. The result
      is that the new ego feels a very strong sense
      of disorientation. Its idea of itself now has
      a very unstable quality. It is as if a mirror
      one ordinarily looks at within one's own soul
      has broken into pieces. On the plus side, this
      fracturing process is accompanied by a sense of
      freedom, for the new ego feels that this
      instability allows it to recreate this picture,
      to make itself new. The new ego still believes
      it has the identity of the excarnating ego . .
      . ."

      "Review": "This [Bodhisattva] individuality
      sacrifices his spiritual awareness in every
      incarnation, believing in the beginning of each
      incarnation that he is the individual whose
      sheaths have been taken over (remember, if you
      know this material, that this bodhisattva does
      not incarnate at birth, but only into the
      sheaths of someone already 30 to 33 years old).
      Moreover, these are the only incarnations of
      this individuality. He was in the spiritual
      world during all of human history preceeding
      [sic] the century following Gautama Buddha's
      final incarnation; and when he achieves his own
      mission he will return to the spiritual world
      permanently.

      "Thus it is necessary for this [Bodhisattva]
      individuality, in order to accomplish his
      mission, to complete all those developments
      which the rest of us have to deal with over
      much greater periods of time, and with greater
      periods of rest, - to complete all those
      developments soley [sic] as a human being, in a
      normal state of consciousness appropriate to
      the century incarnated in. This is why these
      incarnations happen in the 30th to 33rd year of
      the life of another individuality. It is
      absolutely necessary for this being to enter
      into and master these given sheaths and to
      experience completely the ordinary state of
      human consciousness appropriate to that time,
      so as to be able to transform it."

      The reader can hardly avoid the question: How
      does Joel "know" enough about these esoteric
      matters to make such assertions? Do these
      statements stand on their own, like a
      mathematical proof, or do they require support?
      If they require support, what could it be, if
      it exists at all? How does Joel explain what
      is "absolutely necessary" in relation to the
      "sheaths" and "consciousness" during the
      mission of an exalted being such as a
      Bodhisattva working toward Buddhahood?

      From "Perspective": ". . . at the moment of
      exchange, the bodhisattva enters incarnation
      believing itself to be the excarnating
      personality, and forgetting its own nature.
      It could not be otherwise, for anything less
      would be an act of spiritual violence to those
      whose biographies are intertwined with the
      biography of the innocent."

      At this point one may wonder: Why would a
      newly incarnated Bodhisattva aware of His own
      identity do any more "violence" to those
      "intertwined" people than would an unaware and
      totally confused Ego? It might seem that that
      a self-aware Being of such high stature would
      be better able to deal tactfully with these
      "intertwined" people than would a confused,
      lost Ego-being on the brink of insanity.
      Thus, one might ask: Is Joel forcing the
      presumed necessities of the Bodhisattva's
      incarnation to fit his own life-story as he
      interprets it? Why this unnatural forcing
      through such and unconvincing explanation,
      unless Joel believes himself to be this
      Bodhisattva?

      Further from "Perspective": "This is the
      central mystery of the bodhisattva incarnations
      of the future Maitreya Buddha. For something
      very special becomes possible just because this
      impression gathered by the innocent now becomes
      the possession of the incarnating ego. A
      being, whose nature is wisdom, now stands in
      the midst of a given life, a basically
      representative life, identified with it. Now
      this wisdom becomes an active force in this
      life . . . . [etc.]"

      But again: Why must this incarnating
      Bodhisattva be unconscious of his true identity
      in order for this "impression" to become "the
      possession of the incarnating ego"? And:
      Might this wisdom be more effective as an
      "active force" if it were the possession of an
      Ego conscious of its own identity and mission?
      Again: The explanation is unconvincing; Joel
      seems to be forcing the fit.

      Joel cites Steiner and even Tomberg as
      presumably reliable authorities on this matter
      of the Bodhisattva; but does Joel bring forward
      any statements from Steiner or Tomberg to
      support his own assertions about what sort of
      consciousness is necessary for the incarnated
      Bodhisattva? No, he does not; he just makes
      the assertions with completely unconvincing
      explanations as support. One is entitled to
      ask: With such weak given "reasons" for these
      assertions, might the given reasons not be the
      real "reasons"? And if so, what might be the
      real "reason"; is it that Joel is assuming
      that consciousness of the incarnating
      Bodhisattva must be like his own consciousness
      at the time of his putative exchange of Egos,
      assuming because he considers himself to be the
      Bodhisattva? Is there a more likely "reason"?
      Is there any good reason otherwise to assume
      that the consciousness of such a highly
      advanced being as the Maitreya Bodhisattva must
      be like that of the highly confused Joel
      immediately after his "exchange"? Is it not a
      reasonable possibility that the two states of
      consciousness might well be different, just
      because the nature of the beings and their
      incarnational situations are so different?

      Continuing from "Perspective": "Let us not
      forget that Christ Himself entered into a body,
      organized by another for thirty years, at the
      Baptism by the Jordan."

      Again, Joel's readers must ask (if they are
      awake): Why is Joel telling us not to forget
      "that" at this point in the discussion? Is he
      implying that it is obvious that the
      contemporary incarnation of the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva must be exactly like that of the
      Christ at the Jordan, that the Christ was then
      unconscious of His true Identity, and that
      therefore the incarnating Bodhisattva must
      likewise be unconsciousness? If Joel is not
      implying such, then why does he admonish us not
      to forget? And if he is implying such, might
      his readers be justified in doubting the
      obviousness of the two premises in the implied
      deduction?

      (As an aside, if for no other reason than that
      Joel does cite Steiner presumably as an
      authority on this matter, it might be useful to
      note some of what Steiner did say:

      ("And, although many incarnations will be
      needed for the future [Maitreya] Buddha, yet he
      devotes himself during his incarnations
      primarily to giving attention to what occurs
      even though what he now does is relatively
      little, since he is utterly devoted to the
      preparation for his future mission. This will
      be achieved through the fact that a special law
      exists with regard to just this Bodhisattva.
      This law we shall understand if we take account
      of the possibility that a complete revolution
      in the soul's life may occur at a certain age.
      The greatest of such transformations that ever
      occurred took place at the baptism by John.
      What occurred there was that the ego of Jesus,
      in the thirtieth year of His life, abandoned
      the flesh and another ego entered: the Ego of
      the Christ, the Leader of the Sun Beings. A
      like transformation will be experienced by the
      future Maitreya Buddha. But he experiences such
      a revolution in his incarnations quite
      differently. The Bodhisattva patterns his life
      on that of Christ, and those who are initiated
      know that he manifests in every incarnation
      very special characteristics. It will always be
      noted that, in the period between his thirtieth
      and thirty-third years, a mighty revolution
      occurs in his life. There will then be an
      interchange of souls, though not in so mighty a
      manner as in the case of Christ. The 'ego'
      which has until then given life to the body
      passes out at that time, and the Bodhisattva
      becomes, in a fundamental sense, altogether a
      different person from what he has been
      hitherto, even though the ego does not cease
      and is not replaced by another, as was true of
      the Christ." [from: the lecture cycle
      *Esoteric Christianity and the Mission of
      Christian Rosenkreutz*, Lecture 2; Leipzig, 5th
      November 1911]

      (It seems clear enough that Steiner is saying
      that the process of the "interchange of souls"
      during the incarnation of the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva *is* different from that during the
      Incarnation of the Christ, even though the
      exact nature of this difference might not be
      altogether clear to the reader. Regarding this
      obscurity, it might be well to remember the
      general *caveat* that Steiner gave us about his
      unrevised published lectures.)

      -- At this point I ask whether you are at all
      convinced that the Maitreya Bodhisattva at the
      moment of his contemporary incarnation must be
      unconscious of his true identity? Are the
      arguments Joel brings forward to support this
      thesis at all probative, or even plausible? If
      they are not, is it not plausible that Joel is
      "forcing the fit" for no other "reason" than
      that he believes himself to be the Bodhisattva?

      -- And there is yet another apparently forced
      correspondence between the Bodhisattva and
      Joel, this one in the presumed characteristics
      of "personality".

      More from "Perspective": "However, please
      remember, in our century the bodhisattva is in
      that third of its incarnations most joined to
      the material, and least able to express either
      the ongoing received Christ impressions or the
      totality of its own being of wisdom as a
      transformative force. Like the humanity he/she
      has followed into materiality, the bodhisattva
      is, in the present (during incarnation),
      fallen, and still falling."

      Here Joel is continuing a theme he introduced
      earlier in the same essay, and in the other
      essays: that of the putatively "fallen" nature
      of the contemporary Bodhisattva. The arguments
      he gives in support of this thesis are, as
      usual, rather convoluted; but we might well
      ask: Is the *pattern* really the "reason"?

      As Joel introduces this theme in "Perspective":

      "Moreover, it will help to picture this series
      of incarnations as having a particular quality,
      namely a kind of descent followed by a kind of
      ascent. This is due to the fact that the
      relationship between the spiritual world and
      the future Maitreya, during his/her bodhisattva
      incarnations, normally very close, opens wider
      and wider toward the middle, and then narrows
      again later. Let us consider this again. It is
      normal for a bodhisattva, on the way to
      becoming a Buddha, to generally achieve some
      level of initiation in every incarnation. For
      the future Maitreya, this is not the case.
      This has been sacrificed so that certain
      results can be achieved that otherwise would
      not be possible. The result is that while the
      early incarnations involve initiation, as do
      the more remote ones, each progressive
      incarnation (until the middle is reached) means
      a larger existential gap between the spiritual
      world and the incarnated bodhisattva. This
      proceeds until in the area around our time (the
      middle third of the series of incarnations),
      the future Maitreya tends not [to] achieve
      initiation during incarnation, but carries on
      other work. The reason for this is that certain
      missions of individual bodhisattva incarnations
      are such that they do not link up with any
      spiritual discipline, so that the world view of
      the bodhisattva in that particular incarnation
      does not offer initiation as a possible goal.
      Lacking knowledge of initiation in that
      incarnation, the bodhisattva instead pursues
      goals more fitting to the time in which the
      particular incarnation occurs. In what is
      below, this will be made more clear."

      One can only hope for clarity. I will spare us
      the whole of the tortuous argument; you can
      read it for yourself and, hopefully, ask some
      skeptical questions. -- Here I will concentrate
      on the quotation immediately above, to indicate
      the kind of questions that can be asked, the
      doubts that can be raised.

      After reading the immediately foregoing
      quotation the awake reader must again be
      scratching his head: How, or why, is this
      "picture" supposed to "help"? Where does this
      "picture" come from, anyway? Here, Joel does
      not tell us "where", but elsewhere he does give
      a hint:

      From "Process": "Using the infamous
      anthroposophical U-chart, we can picture this
      series of incarnations in the following way. At
      the beginning, incarnations always result in
      initiation, as well as at the end. Inbetween
      [sic], there is first a descending arc, each
      incarnation further and further divorced from
      the spiritual world, until the mid-point (which
      is about right now), when this individuality
      will be the most materially incarnated, and the
      most completely divorced from the spiritual
      worlds. Following this, there is then a gradual
      ascension (in the sense of direct connectedness
      to the spiritual worlds), until the last
      incarnation when 'flesh becomes word'."

      This "infamous" "U-chart" is presumably the
      general Anthro schema of evolution as
      descending from the spiritual into the material
      and then ascending back from the material into
      the spiritual. We might ask: Why must the
      Bodhisattva incarnations follow this "U-chart"
      schema so closely that he cannot be "initiated"
      in his middle incarnations? Are the reasons
      Joel gives at all convincing? And we might ask
      the naïve question: Is such an exalted human
      spirit as a Bodhisattva at the beginning of his
      series of incarnations *as* a Bodhisattva in
      such a similar position to the general "virgin"
      human spirits that the schema of his
      incarnations as Bodhisattva must follow the
      same "U" as do human spirits over the general,
      usual course of evolution as a whole? If the
      Bodhisattva were in fact so "virgin" at the
      beginning of these incarnations, why would he
      have been elevated to this exalted position in
      the first place?

      Once again, these are deeply esoteric
      questions. Does Joel give us any good reason
      to believe that he is in any position to answer
      them? He previously referred to Steiner as an
      authority, but he does not quote Steiner on
      such questions as these last, or even
      paraphrase him with a citation. (In fact, he
      did not actually *quote* Steiner in the first
      place.)

      Joel tells us: "We should note in passing that
      this descent mirrors humanity's descent into
      materiality, as if (which is in fact the case)
      the future Maitreya was [sic] following
      humanity . . . .

      But why should we accept this "note"; does he
      give us any convincing reason? I won't go into
      all the labyrinthine argumentation that Joel
      presents on this theme; here I will leave you
      to struggle through the whole text and answer
      the question for yourself.

      -- I will turn now to the matter of Joel's
      self-identification with George Washington and
      Clara Barton.

      From "Perspective": "Clara Barton . . . .
      moved to Washington D.C. in 1854 (a not
      surprising act since the previous incarnation
      of the future Maitreya was as George
      Washington) . . . ."

      So Clara Barton and George Washington were both
      incarnations of the Maitreya Bodhisattva?
      How would Joel know this, unless he were this
      Bodhisattva, given that ". . . there is only
      one personality who actually knows anything
      concretely real about the bodhisattva
      question"? Joel equals Maitreya equals George
      Washington equals Clara Barton. (And again,
      remember Joel's coy little hint about his
      previous incarnation in connection with the
      founding?)

      But Joel has a problem in making this equation
      fit other "indications" about the incarnations
      of the Maitreya, namely those of Steiner and
      Joel's guru Tomberg. He solves this problem by
      trying to make Steiner, Tomberg, and even the
      Maitreya into liars.

      Clara Barton lived until 1912; the Wendt-body
      was born in 1940. Steiner said the 20th
      Century Bodhisattva was born around the turn of
      the century. (*Vide* James Morgante:
      LAZARIDES' AND PROKOFIEFF'S DER FALL TOMBERG
      AND THE QUESTION OF ANPROKOFIEFF'S
      THE CASE OF VALENTIN TOMBERG: ". . . Steiner's
      remark to Friederich [sic?] Rittelmeyer that
      the Bodhisattva was born at the turn of the
      century...(Tomberg was born in 1900) . . . ."
      Morgante cites Thomas Meyer, *The Bodhisattva
      Question*, p.72.)

      From "Review": ". . . both Steiner and
      Tomberg, at the request of this [Maitreya]
      individuality, lied (I could say they "confused
      the truth", which is more accurate, but a lie
      is a lie, even if it has a viable and necessary
      social purpose)."

      Joel is attributing lies to Steiner, Tomberg,
      and the Maitreya Bodhisattva, all for no other
      plausible reason than to make the 20th Century
      incarnation of this Being fit Joel's self-
      presumed biography. This is blasphemy for
      reasons of insane megalomania. (And consider,
      for example, what Steiner said about lying as
      murder and suicide.)

      And further forcing of the fit:

      "Review": "Thus, for example, if this
      individuality is to study Steiner and Tomberg,
      so as to take in these teachings and make them
      his own, he must not find there any discussion
      of his true nature (before he has achieved
      sufficient human maturity to handle it)." --
      Just as Joel studied Steiner and Tomberg.

      "Review": "So in cooperation with this
      [Maitreya] individuality (who was then present
      and available in the spiritual worlds), this
      possible confusion was avoided by misdirecting
      everyones [sic] attention, from a matter that
      was essentially no one else's business."

      If it is no one else's business, why is Joel
      speaking of it in public? And why is a world-
      historical event "no one else's business"
      anyway? How would Joel know this? Unless he
      considers himself to be this Bodhisattva, and
      he considers it to be his own business? But he
      is acting self-contradictorily, by drawing
      attention to it in way sure to provoke
      curiosity while at the same time trying to
      deflect curiosity. Why not simply remain
      silent in the first place? But self-
      contradiction is nothing unusual for Joel.

      -- And still more forcing of the presumed
      pattern of the Maitreya incarnation to fit the
      life of Joel Wendt: consider the "hubris":

      "Process": "When the change of egos is past,
      and the bodhisattva has incarnated, the life
      being lived now begins to radically transform,
      because the capacities of the new ego are so
      different from the capacities of the previous
      one. Eventually, this individuality must
      necessary become awake to this change and come
      to terms with it. However, this is a human
      being we are thinking of, one quite capable of
      giving in to the temptations and dangers of
      hubris and other maladies of inflated self
      importance."

      "Review": "This always confronts this
      [Maitreya] individuality with a deep temptation
      to hubris, to see itself as higher than the
      ordinary human being, and if this individuality
      were to succumb to this tempation [sic] in any
      of these incarnations, then the work of
      redemption would be lost."

      See the correspondence in this remark (that I
      did not quote) in "Fool": "I suffered an
      egregious case of hubris in the mid-1970's ,
      [sic] believing, at that time, that I had
      become enlightened."

      Is there any plausible reason to attribute to
      the exalted individuality of the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva a tendency to "hubris" -- other
      than Joel's attempt to force the Maitreya's
      character to fit his own? (Joel does seem to
      be somewhat aware of his arrogance and
      megalomania, but he evasively places them in
      the past.)

      -- Joel "forces the fit" in yet another way:
      the "social" work:

      From "Process": "The [Maitreya] bodhisattva's
      mission is always in the horizontal, in the
      social, even when the capacties [sic] inwardly
      realized by the bodhisattva include the
      vertical. It is this social integration that is
      'the Good'.

      "So the bodhisattva works to unite within
      his/her soul the cognitive transformation of
      reason (meditation) and the sacrificial
      transformation of devotion (prayer), for the
      purpose of realizing something in the social.
      Through this inner work the social is seen and
      understood."

      Compare (from "Listening to the World Song"
      [second revision]): "As I see my destiny/task,
      it was to bring my genius of spirit, as regards
      social matters, into connection with
      Anthroposophy via the Center for the Study of
      the Social Question in America."

      This is only one example of the "fit"; those
      even a little familiar with Joel's writings on
      the Internet are very much aware that he -- as
      the "genius" -- considers his primary "work" to
      be to "understand the social".

      -- There's even more. Joel makes the Maitreya
      into a non-initiate:

      "Perspective": ". . . around our time (the
      middle third of the series of incarnations),
      the future Maitreya tends not [to] achieve
      initiation during incarnation . . . ."

      As I presume you are aware, Joel has made many
      remarks that he is not initiated, and that he
      discounts initiation generally. And just
      recently he dropped this little bomb in his
      "Three Wishes":

      "With the new clair-thinking (as against
      needing to become a full initiate - a form of
      consciousness no longer really necessary) we
      can best go forward, for any subject/object of
      interest can be thought using this method of
      entering the ethereal landscape."

      So Joel as the non-initiate, who discounts (in
      opposition to Steiner) the need for the
      initiation of the spiritual researcher, is the
      non-initiate Bodhisattva? It fits. And why
      else does it fit except that Joel *makes* it
      fit because he believes himself to be the
      Maitreya? (I won't quote here the arguments
      that Joel gives for the necessary non-
      initiation of the Maitreya; you can read them
      again for yourself. Please just ask the
      question: is Joel's twisted argumentation more
      explanatory than the simple explanation that
      Joel is forcing the fit yet again?)

      -- And still yet another "fit". Please recall
      the second quoted story, the admittedly
      biographical one, from *Fool* -- and compare it
      with this quote:

      "Perspective": "I can somewhat describe the
      nature of this spirit that sacrifices [to the
      incarnating Maitreya] its earthly life in its
      early thirties. He/she is a true innocent.
      [etc.]"

      Again, it all fits: The Bodhisattva Ego
      replaces the Ego and takes over the sheaths of
      an "innocent", and Joel's presumed Ego did the
      same in relation to this "friend" who was
      presumably the epitome of "selfless human
      love". Why else would Joel consider this
      condition to be true of the Bodhisattva-
      incarnation unless he considers himself to be
      this Being?

      -- OK, I've walked you through the "supportive
      context" about as much as I'm going to do here.
      I do hope that the picture is coming together
      in your mind by now. Please go back and read
      the documents again and see how it all falls
      into place: Joel is somehow not altogether the
      same person who was born almost 65 years ago;
      he is the present incarnation of the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva, who was also George Washington and
      Clara Barton.

      So why doesn't he just come out and say it? --
      I can't give a definite answer to that
      question. Is he deliberately devious or is he
      totally confused? I would guess some of both.
      As I said, I'm only an amateur psychiatrist; I
      can't make a final diagnosis.

      It does seem likely to me that Joel did have
      some kind of "walk-in" experience. (I would
      guess that the walk-in phenomenon is some kind
      of "possession" or "obsession", or at the
      least, something *like* possession.) Such
      experiences are not at all unheard-of. Just
      Google *walk-in* and do a little reading.
      Walk-in people are very often confused about
      their identity, though Joel is the only one I
      know of who considers himself to be the
      Maitreya. Why so? Did he see the obscure
      remark by Steiner that "the ego does not cease
      and is not replaced" and, considering his own
      identity-confusion, leap to the conclusion that
      Steiner must have been talking about Joel? Did
      his megalomania come from the walk-in entity,
      or was it in him before? I don't know. You
      can try to figure it out for yourself; I've
      done about all I'm going to do here and now.

      Stephen wrote:

      [snip] >>I do not see the internal evidence in
      your post that you are doing anything more that
      voicing your strong opinion. One wag has put it
      that opinions are like assholes - everybody has
      one. I have mine and you have yours, but unless <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    • dottie zold
      ... Not actually Stephen. I ve referenced you in a few posts while speaking to Stephen H. Maybe it was you who got confused. Dottie
      Message 64 of 64 , Oct 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Stephen:
        > That, combined with the fact that you've been
        > calling Steve H. Stephen
        > C. in the body of some of your posts. Do you really
        > know or care who
        > you are talking to or are you just using any
        > opportunity to blow your
        > horn?

        Not actually Stephen. I've referenced you in a few
        posts while speaking to Stephen H. Maybe it was you
        who got confused.

        Dottie



        __________________________________
        Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
        http://mail.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.