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

To Speak Un-Spiritually about the Spirit?

Expand Messages
  • jmn36210
    Rudolf Steiner [GA 217 - October 5, 1922]: «Now, I really do not find any very great difference between those people who call themselves materialists and
    Message 1 of 3 , May 2, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      Rudolf Steiner [GA 217 - October 5, 1922]:


      «Now, I really do not find any very great difference between those people who call themselves materialists and those who in little sectarian circles call themselves, let us say, theosophists. For the way in which the one makes out a case for materialism and another for theosophy is by no means essentially different. It comes down to whether people want to make out a case for theosophy with the kind of thinking entirely dependent upon the brain. If this is so, even theosophy is materialistic. It is not a question of words, but whether the words express the Spirit. When I compare much of the theosophical twaddle with Haeckel's thought, I find the Spirit in Haeckel, whereas the theosophists speak of the Spirit as if it were matter, but diluted matter. The point is not that one speaks about the Spirit but that one speaks through the Spirit. One can speak spiritually about the material, that is to say, it is possible to speak about the material in mobile concepts. And that is always much more spiritual than to speak un-spiritually about the Spirit.

      However many come forward today with every possible kind of logical argument in defense of the spiritual view of the world; this simply does not help us, does not help one bit. During the night we remain just as barren if during the day we ponder about hydrogen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, silica, potassium, sodium and so on, and then evolve our theories; as if we ponder about the human being consisting of physical, etheric, and astral bodies. It is all the same so far as what is living is concerned. To speak in a living way about potassium or calcium, to treat chemistry as really alive, this is much more valuable than a dead, intellectual theosophy. For theosophy too can be taught in a dead, intellectual way. It does not really matter whether we speak materialistically or intellectually, what matters is that the Spirit shall be in what we say. The Spirit must penetrate us with its livingness. But because this is no longer understood, it is very disagreeable when anyone takes this seriously.

      <snip>

      This is what I wanted to say quite clearly, my dear friends, that in what I intend here and have always intended, the important thing is not merely to speak about the Spirit, but out of the Spirit, to unfold the Spirit in the very speaking. The Spirit can have an educative effect upon our dead cultural life. The Spirit must be the lightning which strikes our dead culture and kindles it to renewed life. Therefore, do not think that you will find here any plea for rigid concepts such as the concepts physical body, etheric body, astral body, which are so nicely arrayed on the walls of theosophical groups and are pointed out just as, in a lecture room, sodium, potassium and so on are pointed to with their atomic weights. There is no difference between pointing at tables giving the atomic weight of potassium and pointing to the etheric body. It is exactly the same, and that is not the point. Interpreted in this way, Theosophy — or even Anthroposophy — is not new, but merely the latest product of the old.

      The most incredible twaddle is heard when people suddenly feel themselves called upon to uphold the spiritual. I do not mention these things for the sake of criticism, but as a symptom.»




    • dottie zold
      My friend, I always try to put to the  side your judgements of conversations that take place....and I will continue to do so. I hit a little snag when you
      Message 2 of 3 , May 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        My friend, I always try to put to the  side your judgements of conversations that take place....and I will continue to do so. I hit a little snag when you said 'friendy advice Dottie' and I had to swollow a little bit and I did....and that's all good.
         
        I think everything is in the eye of THE beholder. As I wake up this morning out of the rainbow consideration I find that I am led to the Pandu brothers....and thankfully Kim brought forth Krishna this morning and put the name Arhuna to this as I did not seek for this yesterday.....and so when I did I realized that for the first time I can understand the Mahabaratta...even if I can't spell it:) and it comes from taking these things into my heart and then seeking outward where these things are found.......if I had to develop them inwardly I would need a room and a window, both of which I do not have.
         
        I am realizing that each person according to his own qualifications will understand another according to their own consideration on the matter. There's a great country song that says something like 'I used to use the name God when I wanted to get a point across' and now we have many students of Steiner using Steiner when they want to get a point across....hard to live in that as this teacher said so many things and to so many different peoples that the flip side to the coin can not be seen by one who wishes to seek to make their point according to the teacher.
         
        All good things,
        Dottie
         
        p.s. why do the boys always use these bold black and red tones.....pointed spear is what I feel when I see this more then when I read the words, d
         


         
        "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner



        --- On Sun, 5/2/10, jmn36210 <jmn36210@...> wrote:

        From: jmn36210 <jmn36210@...>
        Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Speak Un-Spiritually about the Spirit?
        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, May 2, 2010, 8:52 AM




        Rudolf Steiner [GA 217 - October 5, 1922]:


        «Now, I really do not find any very great difference between those people who call themselves materialists and those who in little sectarian circles call themselves, let us say, theosophists. For the way in which the one makes out a case for materialism and another for theosophy is by no means essentially different. It comes down to whether people want to make out a case for theosophy with the kind of thinking entirely dependent upon the brain. If this is so, even theosophy is materialistic. It is not a question of words, but whether the words express the Spirit. When I compare much of the theosophical twaddle with Haeckel's thought, I find the Spirit in Haeckel, whereas the theosophists speak of the Spirit as if it were matter, but diluted matter. The point is not that one speaks about the Spirit but that one speaks through the Spirit. One can speak spiritually about the material, that is to say, it is possible to speak about the material in mobile concepts. And that is always much more spiritual than to speak un-spiritually about the Spirit.

        However many come forward today with every possible kind of logical argument in defense of the spiritual view of the world; this simply does not help us, does not help one bit. During the night we remain just as barren if during the day we ponder about hydrogen, chlorine, bromine, iodine, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, silica, potassium, sodium and so on, and then evolve our theories; as if we ponder about the human being consisting of physical, etheric, and astral bodies. It is all the same so far as what is living is concerned. To speak in a living way about potassium or calcium, to treat chemistry as really alive, this is much more valuable than a dead, intellectual theosophy. For theosophy too can be taught in a dead, intellectual way. It does not really matter whether we speak materialistically or intellectually, what matters is that the Spirit shall be in what we say. The Spirit must penetrate us with its livingness. But because this is no longer understood, it is very disagreeable when anyone takes this seriously.

        <snip>

        This is what I wanted to say quite clearly, my dear friends, that in what I intend here and have always intended, the important thing is not merely to speak about the Spirit, but out of the Spirit, to unfold the Spirit in the very speaking. The Spirit can have an educative effect upon our dead cultural life. The Spirit must be the lightning which strikes our dead culture and kindles it to renewed life. Therefore, do not think that you will find here any plea for rigid concepts such as the concepts physical body, etheric body, astral body, which are so nicely arrayed on the walls of theosophical groups and are pointed out just as, in a lecture room, sodium, potassium and so on are pointed to with their atomic weights. There is no difference between pointing at tables giving the atomic weight of potassium and pointing to the etheric body. It is exactly the same, and that is not the point. Interpreted in this way, Theosophy — or even Anthroposophy — is not new, but merely the latest product of the old.

        The most incredible twaddle is heard when people suddenly feel themselves called upon to uphold the spiritual. I do not mention these things for the sake of criticism, but as a symptom.»







      • dottie zold
        Modesty is a favorite theme with Akiba, and he reverts to it again and again. He who esteems himself highly on account of his knowledge, he teaches, is
        Message 3 of 3 , May 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          "Modesty is a favorite theme with Akiba, and he reverts to it again and again. "He who esteems himself highly on account of his knowledge," he teaches, "is like a corpse lying on the wayside: the traveler turns his head away in disgust, and walks quickly by"
           
          d

           
          "Hence only by means of love can we give real help for karma to work out in the right way." Rudolf Steiner

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