Re: German anthropop youth movement
- Hi Tom,,
you address me, so I feel obliged to answer. I click through all
letters on this platform but only very seldom I feel the impulse to
add some comments. I'm happy to be a spectator at the side. Frankly
I'm not a friend of the sharp words that I read quite frequently
here, so I prefer to remain outside these quarrels.
Maybe it was even my fault to trigger this discussion about a new
stream among young anthroposophists. It is not a formal group, it's
not a Verein, association or alike, these people (and I'll give some
names and links later) are member of the Anthr. Society, as far as I
know, otherwise they wouldn't have access to `official' circles,
Yes, I agree, that they would say things like "Well since Rudolf
Steiner was a product of
his times, and he was Central European, coming from a strong Judeao-
Christian belief system (remember Steiner was baptized Catholic),
then his view of Christianity and the entire
Christo-centric foundation of anthroposophy is as much a product of
his specific time."
Many of the proponents of these ideas are centred around the
magazine "Info 3", the anthro mag with the highest circulation.
http://www.info3.de/ycms/projekt_32.shtml Chief editor Dr Heisterkamp
tries to keep open the lines to the traditional anthro circles in
Germany and Dornach, Sebastian Gronbach is the spearhead of this new
philosophy his private blog , http://anthronrw.blogspot.com/ ,
Felix Hau wrote a famous infamous article about Rudolf Steiner's life
http://www.info3.de/ycms/artikel_1492.shtml with the sentence which
is important in this context here: 5. Steiners Einweihung hatte
nichts - und zwar überhaupt nichts - mit dem Christentum zu tun. in
English "5. Steiner's initiation had nothing and I repeat absolutely
nothing to do with Christianity". Of course this article was
discussed in many circles, statements from Dornach, discussion rounds
with priests from the Christengemeinschaft etc.
I don't want to raise emotions by mentioning these names and facts.
Fight among the anthroposophists has done more harm to Rudolf
Steiner's cause than many of the attacks from outside.
Can you feel the `astral bleeding' among the victims and aggressors?
The solution when there are diverging fractions? HPB gave the
example, when there was a fight between Christian and Indian-oriented
members in the London Lodge she proposed (ordered?) that there should
be 2 lodges, Steiner follow the same principle: differentiation
instead of centralisation, in Stuttgart there were I think 4
lodges/Zweige at Steiner's time.
`In Gegensätzen vereint' (about: opposing in will+opinion but still
united) was the title of a book when there were big differences in
Dornach. (Remember, Rudolf Steiner's books were not sold in the
Goetheanum because they came from the opposing Marie Steiner
fraction.) And another word "Schichtenurteil" that is different
judgements according to the aspect of the person/fact considered.
Heisterkamp and Gronbach do a good job in creating goodwill towards
anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner among Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber
followers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKCPJRc3sd8 (-However
they shun the word Christ, -in the youtube video Gronbach he gives as
the central definition of anthroposophy a quotation of Rudolf
Steiner: An Stelle Gottes den freien Menschen Ausrufezeichen
Ausrufezeichen Ausrufezeichen At the place of (or instead of) god
the free man exclamation mark exclamation mark exclamation
mark) They start something new, interesting, modern, of the 21st
century that has its roots in anthroposophy but IS Not anthroposophy
(-they absolutely prefer Rudolf Steiner's writings before 1902). At
least that's how I see it but I won't quarrel with anyone who says
Gronbach's ideas are anthroposophy, even more, the heart of
I'm sorry that I don't have the time to polish this text. As a
teacher by profession I try to raise the level of information (I got
unpleasant replies when I wrote of the level of education last time).
I hoped to give an answer to your question with a positive attitude.
--- In email@example.com, "tmasthenes13"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frank Thomas Smith"
> <eltrigal78@> wrote:
> > A while back Tom broke the news about an anthroposophical youth
> > movement in Germany which is outside the Society, emphasizes
> > Christianity much less, and even less steiner..if I remember
> > correctly. Anyway, I mobilized my agents in the Vaterland and they
> > report back to me after extensive investigation that NO SUCH
> > EXISTS!movement.
> > Frank
> Yo Frank,
> I am still waiting for my "spies out in the cold far reaches of
> Cyber-Krautlandia to report in about the ground-swelling youth
> Actually, we have a very fair and balanced correspondent in Germany
> right here on AT who might be able to weigh in on the issue. Hello
> Dear Ottmar, could you comment on the idea that whoever belongs to
> this new ground-swelling movement of young Anthros, would have an
> attitude something like the following:
> They would look upon Rudolf Steiner's racialist statements and say:
> "Well, he was a product of his times and we live in different times
> Similarly, they would say: "Well since Rudolf Steiner was a product
> his times, and he was Central European, coming from a strongyou
> Judeao-Christian belief system (remember Steiner was baptized
> Catholic), then his view of Christianity and the entire
> Christo-centric foundation of anthroposophy is as much a product of
> his specific time as were his racialist statements.
> In the meantime, Frank, since you can also read German, let me put
> on the same trail that I followed.newsletter
> I started to "tread this path" when I found this article by Uncle
> Willy Lochmann from his "Symptomatological Illustrations"
> #27, dated August 20022027.pdf
> On page 2 of this 5 page article, you notice a section that reads:
> "Act 2: Anthroposophy without Steiner"
> Now my other source was Michael Eggert whose Egoisten blog contains
> many entries which I have read. There is no single source here. I
> suggest you browse around.
> Oh by the way, Michael Eggert has just posted Peter Staudenmaier's
> recent response on WC to my question about Benesch. In it you are
> mentioned, Frank. I quote it here:
> Ravagli's most recent book is among other things an extended defense
> of Karl Heise, the anthroposophist and antisemitic conspiracy
> theorist. Then there's his work on Steiner's views on race and on
> (that portion of Ravagli's work is promoted and distributed inEnglish
> by Frank Smith).
> And speaking of Lorenzo, why don't we get him to dive in the mud pit
> here? (I'll write and entice him like only I can. ;=)
> However, Frank, in my next posting, I shall go to the source of this
> new movement. It is on the Vorstand itself!
- Hi Ottmar,
What I wonder Ottmar is where people say things that
are rumor or gossip without putting up the other
persons point of view, ie. Sergei Prokofieff's, on the
comment that he took something from Mr. Tomberg.
Rudolf Steiner often said he was accused of just
taking things from other streams and that this was not
true. In fact the critics use this point exactly to
say he 'stole' from other spiritual streams. So for me
it's always so important to know what the person being
accused thought of such a thing. Is it possible that
he too had already come to this information on his own
and then saw it in another's work and was validated
from it? Or did he take it and not say rightly that he
took it? It's always so crucial to have what the other
person things on such things or what they have to say
I think it fair before spreading rumors. And it is
spreading rumors in the sense that the other person
can not defend themselves or make their notes known.
And I don't think things happening like that are fair.
Although I do trust they happen all the time, I know
that as a spiritual science student I am ever learning
how quick fire is spread and how quick I may have to
backtrack. And so I have to think twice always and
some times three times and sometimes I still make the
mistake of putting someone else in a badlight from
someone else's comments.
You offered this up about Sergei and Mr. Tomberg and
then someone asked Tom what he thought and he
republished it on this list and who knows how many
rooms this will run through.
We did a funny experience one time in one of Dennis
Klocek's workshops. Two people on two different sides
of the room started out with a sentence shared only
with them. They then told the next person and that
person told the next person and so forth on down the
line. Can you imagine what it ended up like at the end
of the line? Well, let me tell you, it was so funny by
the time it reached me I could not tell it without
being in hysterics to the person next to me. Somehow I
did say it to the next person with tears in my eyes
and that person could not send it on down to the next
person as well. It was just too funny.
So we stop and we say what we heard and then the
person who heard it first told us what the sentence
was originally. It was so different we laughed for
days on end. And that's what happens to rumors.
All good things,
--- ottmar12 <ottmar12@...> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> I thank you for restoring that part of my letter.
> This part seemed to
> be the most important part of my letter. Of course I
> cannot expect
> you, Tom, to restore the whole letter, but please
> add a link to it. I
> don't know how to do that. (But please, dear
> readers, keep in mind,
> this was only a small part of my letter, the other
> parts were equally
> important to me and are also necessary in order not
> give the
> impression that I only want to give ammunition to
> opponents.) Ottmar
> --- In email@example.com,
> <TomBuoyed@...> wrote:
> > To contribute to this discussion about SP, IG and
> the whole
> > question, I would like to call attention to a
> section of Ottmar's
> > and detailed posting today. I'm afraid it got lost
> in the shuffle.
> > Does anyone else know about the allegations Ottmar
> mentions below
> > Sergei Prokofieff may have stolen Valenting
> Tomberg's early
> > ideas about Kitezh or Kitesh, the Russian Grail
> > If true, that would go a long way toward
> explaining why SP wrote
> > a nasty "hit piece" on Tomberg, so that he,
> Sergei, could justify
> > stealing Tomberg's ideas and not give Tomberg
> credit because that
> > would surely be a source of great embarrassment
> for SP.
> > Sounds just like the way a Jesuit would operate.
> > And Ottmar, please do not worry about bringing
> this important
> > information. I thank you for it and the
> responsibility for its use
> > and/or misuse by me is totally on my karmic fat
> > Tom
> > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> > > <ottmar12@> wrote:
> > 4 On Sergej O. Prokofieffhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
> > On Sergej Prokofieff: I remember how enthusiastic
> I was when
> reading a
> > book of him for the first time, "Rudolf Steiner
> und die Grundlegung
> > der neuen Mysterien," [Rudolf Steiner and the
> foundation of the new
> > mysteries.] I thought: wow, very well researched,
> a big concept and
> > such a young author.
> > Some years later I was very unpleasantly touched
> by a personal
> > experience. In Stuttgart I gave him a manuscript
> from a Dutch friend
> > for a book which should appear a year or 2 years
> later, for the
> > millennium of the Christianisation of Russia in
> 1988. The book was
> > about Kitesh or Kitezh.
> > Prokofieff sent back the manuscript with some not
> so nice words,
> > saying he didn't want to have anything to do with
> > For that book see:
> > Kitezh: The Russian Grail Legends Aquarian Press
> by Munin
> > That is the only book of that author which was
> translated into
> > English. In that book you find an English
> translation of the
> > text, which was written in the old Church-Russian
> language. Perhaps
> > that English and the Dutch versions are the only
> versions published
> > a modern western language.
> > Some years later Prokofieff also published a book
> where the theme of
> > Kitesh [or Kitezh] plays an important role, but he
> presents the idea
> > of Kitesh as his own idea but in fact it's
> Valentin Tomberg's idea,
> > expressed more than 50 years earlier! That's a
> moral and
> > no no of course, but Prokofieff trusts that his
> readers don't know
> > Tomberg's essays and books. And thus he
> acknowledges that Tomberg is
> > an occultist or esotericist who is able to find
> something of that
> > (Kitesh is, Tomberg says, the mythos, the
> spiritual essence of the
> > post-Atlantian period: a whole town, like the new
> Jerusalem is
> > into heaven, just like Goethe's Faust is the
> mythos for the 5 th
> > period: one person struggles for knowledge and
> liberation and
> > for the 4 th period.)
> > Of course Prokofieff can fascinate many people
> with his tremendous
> > knowledge/memory of quotations, but sometimes he
> makes unjust use of
> > them, turns and twists them until they fit into
> his ideas. Herbert
> > Wimbauer, an interesting author and lecturer wrote
> a book about it
> > Der Fall Prokofieff, (The Prokofieff Case)
> > http://www.geisteskind.de/Wimbauer.htm
> > Wimbauer withdrew from the public in the mid 80s,
> but for
> > `style' he broke his silence in 1995. (Wimbauer
> has nothing to do
> > Tomberg friends.)
> > I like Prokofieff for his love and dedication to
> Rudolf Steiner and
> > his work.
> > (I don't want to insult or slander Prokofieff or
> any of his
> > friends/adherents. I beg your excuse if you felt
> like this. I only
> > wanted to help to give a balanced view of that
> prominent member of
> > Anthr. Soc. He advanced the studies of many anthr.
> students by his
> > big books.)
> > I often asked myself what have Prokofieff,
> Bondarenko, Beljy,
> > Kobylinskij-Ellis in common, can I recognize
> anything special
> > in them?
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>=== message truncated ===
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping