Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on Steiner
- I'm imagining that the way our teachers nature friend
interacted with him as the emmesary, which then led to
the Master, is how the CC Church works its services
out in a way as well as the readers of First Class.
It is said that they work to be devoid of personality
so that something can come in and speak in a certain
manner when they are in those roles. And it seems that
our teacher set it up in this manner according to how
it happened for him. I had never heard that he said
the other had said a thing without enthusiasm which
then created a lot in another.
I think when we speak of Master are we talking about
Christian Rosenkruez? It would seem we are if the
letter M is used as a name.
--- Steve Hale <sardisian01@...> wrote:
> Notes By Rudolf Steiner written for Edouard Schure__________________________________________________
> in Barr, Alsace,
> September 1907
> My attention was drawn to Kant at an early stage.
> At fifteen and
> sixteen I studied Kant intensively, and before going
> on to college
> in Vienna I had an intense interest in Kant's early
> century orthodox followers, who have been completely
> forgotten by
> official historians of thought in Germany and are
> rarely mentioned.
> In addition, I immersed myself in Fichte and
> Schelling. During this
> period and this is already due to external
> spiritual influences
> I gained complete understanding of the concept of
> time. This
> knowledge was in no way connected with my studies
> and was guided
> totally by the spiritual life. I understood that
> there is a
> regressing evolution, the occult-astral, which
> interferes with the
> progressing one. This knowledge is the precondition
> of spiritual
> Then came acquaintance with the agent of the M.
> [the Master].
> Then intensive study of Hegel.
> Then the study of modern philosophy as it
> from the 1850s onward in Germany, particularly
> the so-called
> Theory of Knowledge with all its various
> My boyhood passed in such a way that, although no
> one consciously
> planned it, I never met anyone who was
> superstitious. If I did hear
> anyone speak of superstitious things, the emphasis
> was always
> strongly on their rejection. Although I became
> familiar with church
> worship, in that I took part in it as a so-called
> altar-boy, nowhere
> did I meet true piety and religiosity, not even
> among the priests
> whom I knew. On the contrary, I continuously saw
> certain negative
> traits of the Catholic clergy.
> I did not meet the M. [the Master] immediately, but
> first an
> emissary who was completely initiated into the
> secrets of the plants
> and their effects, and into their connection with
> the cosmos and
> human nature. Contact with the spirits of nature
> was something self-
> evident for him, about which he talked without
> enthusiasm, but he
> aroused enthusiasm all the more.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, dottie zold
> I'm imagining that the way our teachers nature friend
> interacted with him as the emmesary, which then led to
> the Master, is how the CC Church works its services
> out in a way as well as the readers of First Class.
> It is said that they work to be devoid of personality
> so that something can come in and speak in a certain
> manner when they are in those roles. And it seems that
> our teacher set it up in this manner according to how
> it happened for him. I had never heard that he said
> the other had said a thing without enthusiasm which
> then created a lot in another.
> I think when we speak of Master are we talking about
> Christian Rosenkruez? It would seem we are if the
> letter M is used as a name.
These notes for Schure are important to be given here, now; right as
we are again experiencing the critical viewpoint of a materialist.
Now, whether this materialist sides with Kant and believes that
a 'ding-an-sich' actually exists behind the world of sense
perception and logical cognition, or is a strict logical empiricist
like Hume, who greatly influenced Kant, is not the point. Either
will do quite well for a materialist.
The point is that these notes to Schure give a very lucid and
rational description of Rudolf Steiner's own path of development
from three aspects. (1) is the philosophical or epistemological
path which I am transcribing now, and contains a very important
final summation that serves to set the path of anthroposophical
spiritual science; (2) gives the psychological aspect centered on
the rosicrucian path; and (3) is the cosmological or evolutionary
aspect in a certain brief detail.
So, by September of 1907 Steiner's system has developed to a well-
integrated trinity of philosophical-psychological-cosmological
proportions, and thus very cogent for the uptake. My interest in
presenting this biographical sketch concerns this cogency, as well
as the fact that it helps to embellish Steiner's autobiography,
which terminates before the midpoint of that year, 1907. And, of
course, to demonstrate that spiritual science is a study that people
strive for because they choose to do so, just as there are those
that don't. It's a personal thing; something that resides in the
soul of the aspirant. And some critics don't even believe in a
soul, or a spirit in man because it's not outwardly visible to their
critical eye of angular representation.