5208Re: How do we know anthroposophy is true?
- Aug 23, 2010
> >>It seems that you consider higher faculties to be developed gradually (we are already on the "other side"), and that is also my impression from studying anthroposophy. But is it reliable on that level?RB: The plant is quite easy, because in this case the percept is always available, and you can see the concepts in the percepts once you have discovered them. To take an example, I read the book "The plant between sun and earth" by Adams/Whicher earlier this summer. In this book it is said that plants often have a concave form when growing upwards, instead of a convex as could be imagined. Then there were pictures that were supposed to show this. I had never thought about this before, and could not see what they meant, no matter how much I looked at the pictures. Then all of a sudden - I understood what they meant, and I saw it not only on all the pictures but also everywhere in the garden It´s the same with the metamorphoses of Goethe, albeit some are more difficult to check since I don`t have all the plants at hand where you can see some of the "instances worth a 1000".
> ******* It's the same thing as your judgment that the green thing in a pot on your desk is a plant. You could doubt that too. But you don't.
So the plants I think I can handle. After all this is precisely what I wrote about in my first message, since we see the plants here in the physical world. But how about this for example the description of the cosmic planes according to the Cosmo Conception (http://www.rosicrucian.com/images/rccen006.gif). This may very well be teached by Rosicrucian orders, even at correspondence courses. But do they really know this?
If we go back to what we really are discussing, it would be interesting to find out what you really mean. Are you saying that clairvoyance is of different degrees, and that we can develop enough of it when studying messages from spiritual scientists, mediums, mystics etc, so that we can verify or reject it? Somewhat in the same sense as we can view our own soul (feelings etc), but that we can`t really say that we see it as clearly as outer objects, until have learned to do so via esoteric training ?
>RB: No I can´t easily find the messages again, since there seems to be no search function here on Yahoo. Is there one? Anyway, it does not matter, I just wanted to illustrate that there are disagreements on spiritual statements even among anthroposphists.
> >>For example you, yourself, seems to believe in some of Cayce´s statements, whereas you said in one of these forums that you were sceptic to the descriptions by Anne Catherine Emmerich regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Then there were other on the forum who were totally sceptic to Cayce, and then there are those who have confidence in A-C Emmerich. Robert Powell has written at least one book partly based on her visions, so he seems to have confidence in it, although I don`t know his view on the description of the crucifixion.
> ******* If you'd mention something specific from the Cayce readings or from the mystic Emmerich I could address it. I don't know that I said I was skeptical about something specific she or Powell wrote but rather that I'm always skeptical about fervently emotional religious people and their visions. I have psychic impressions but I can stand apart from them and analyze them like a scientist. That's spiritual science.
> You said it's either a choice of embarking on the path of spiritual schooling or just having blind faith. Well, nothing is stopping you from embarking on that path.RB: Well, how can you be so sure about this? There may be several things that stops me from doing that even if I wanted to. I think all who studies anthroposophy actively are going a path they may intend it or not - it´s more a question of the intensity of it. For my part I was thinking of the path described by Steiner is "How to attain knowledge of ", where you are to do different exercises. According to Steiner only a part of this path was described there, so I can`t really judge it, but based on my feeling think that such thing are not to be taken lightly and I would like to have a teacher, just as when doing other potentially dangerous thing as e.g. learning to fly an airplane or learning to parachuting.
Starman: Once you are on it, your questions begin to become different than when you were standing back and not committing. For example, the anthroposophical idea of threefold man, or the four temperaments -- -- they're just ideas that you can say maybe were right but who knows.
RB: The threefold man is physical so this also falls under what I wrote about in my first message. In fact I think it would be impossible to work out all these polarities and correspondances that I asked about when "standing back and not committing"! I also assume that you would start to see these ideas in the way Goethe did with the plants, colors, anatomy and his other interests, although of course Goethe was a kind of master of this, at least in his own time. The four temperaments belong to the human soul, so these are also quite near at hand.
Starman: But if you work with the anthroposophical medicine and see how the three systems interact, or you become a teacher and see the four temperaments in the children, then it's no longer something that some guy said in a book. You start to see them for yourself, and I do mean SEE. You can doubt ideas, but not direct perceptions.
RB: No, of course you should not doubt it. It would be interesting to hear how you see the temperaments, if it is possible to do?
The background for me starting to think about this with "things you can check and things you have to take on faith", was when I thought about if I should in some way become active in the anthroposophical society that is nearest to where I live. As I wrote, there is not an active group in Linköping where I live, but there is in fact one in Norrköping 40 km away, that is possible for me to go to if there are activities to take part in. I looked in their program of activities, hoping to find some kind of starting-course, that I could attend, and that other people who were new to anthroposophy could attend . Not that I was new to anthroposophy this was earlier this year but for lack of better ideas it could be good to take such a course to start to learn to know the people that were active there. I did not find what I was looking for, which caused me to think what it really would take to hold such a course, and what was lacking in how anthroposophy was presented to the world outside it. I came to the conclusion that what was to be presented could be a summary of what one or other authority had said, but more importantly -what the members themselves had experienced. This applies not only to anthroposophy, but to all spiritual movements the Theosophical movement, the Rosicrucian orders etc. If such material was compiled and made available in courses and on the web, I think the whole thing would stay alive, and attract even more people. If the members have higher experiences these can be spoken of, otherwise the physical world can perhaps be a good start. It was just a starting point I came up with, more ideas are welcome
// Robert B.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>