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

Re: German anthropop youth movement

Expand Messages
  • ottmar12
    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
    Message 1 of 52 , Dec 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      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,
      publications, etc.

      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 anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "tmasthenes13"
      <TomBuoyed@...> wrote:
      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "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!
      > > 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
      > today."
      > Similarly, they would say: "Well since Rudolf Steiner was a product
      > 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 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.
      > I started to "tread this path" when I found this article by Uncle
      > Willy Lochmann from his "Symptomatological Illustrations"
      > #27, dated August 2002
      > http://www.lochmann-verlag.com/Mit%20vereinten%20Gegensaetzen%20Nr.%
      > 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.
      > http://www.egoisten.de/index.html
      > 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 in
      > 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!
      > Tom
    • dottie zold
      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
      Message 52 of 52 , Dec 10, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        about it.

        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
        > Prokrofieff
        > opponents.) Ottmar
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
        > "tmasthenes13"
        > <TomBuoyed@...> wrote:
        > >
        > > To contribute to this discussion about SP, IG and
        > the whole
        > authorship
        > > question, I would like to call attention to a
        > section of Ottmar's
        > long
        > > and detailed posting today. I'm afraid it got lost
        > in the shuffle.
        > >
        > > Does anyone else know about the allegations Ottmar
        > mentions below
        > that
        > > Sergei Prokofieff may have stolen Valenting
        > Tomberg's early
        > published
        > > ideas about Kitezh or Kitesh, the Russian Grail
        > myth?
        > >
        > > If true, that would go a long way toward
        > explaining why SP wrote
        > such
        > > 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.
        > Wow!
        > >
        > > 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
        > head.
        > >
        > > Tom
        > >
        > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
        > "ottmar12"
        > > > <ottmar12@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > 4 On Sergej O. Prokofieff
        > >
        > > 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
        > that.
        > >
        > > For that book see:
        > >
        > http://www.hudiwoga.nl/Publicaties/Kitesj/Kitesj.asp
        > > Kitezh: The Russian Grail Legends Aquarian Press
        > by Munin
        > Nederlander
        > >
        > > That is the only book of that author which was
        > translated into
        > > English. In that book you find an English
        > translation of the
        > original
        > > text, which was written in the old Church-Russian
        > language. Perhaps
        > > that English and the Dutch versions are the only
        > versions published
        > in
        > > 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
        > intellectual
        > > 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
        > size.
        > >
        > > (Kitesh is, Tomberg says, the mythos, the
        > spiritual essence of the
        > 6th
        > > post-Atlantian period: a whole town, like the new
        > Jerusalem is
        > lifted
        > > into heaven, just like Goethe's Faust is the
        > mythos for the 5 th
        > > period: one person struggles for knowledge and
        > liberation and
        > Oedipus
        > > 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
        > Prokofieff's
        > > `style' he broke his silence in 1995. (Wimbauer
        > has nothing to do
        > with
        > > 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
        > the
        > > 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
        > Russian
        > > 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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.