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

RE: [wc] Re: an example of Steiner's sources

Expand Messages
  • Peter Staudenmaier
    Roger and Eric raised some interesting questions about Steiner s sources. It can be difficult for anthroposophists to acknowledge the importance of these
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 17, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Roger and Eric raised some interesting questions about Steiner's sources. It can be difficult for anthroposophists to acknowledge the importance of these historical factors in making sense of Steiner's teachings. Just today, for example, I got another message from anthroposophist Jonathan Code ("quintessential"), yet another Expert on Epistemology, who believes that understanding texts comes not through reading but through "an engagement with the exercise of exact sensorial imagination." This is the same mistake that Dennis made, that Joel made, that Brad made, and so forth. The error makes it hard for Steiner enthusiasts to figure out what non-anthroposophists are talking about: they think we are demeaning Steiner by paying attention to the context within which he lived and thought and wrote and taught.

      One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an inventory, of Steiner's library. There are fragmentary indications of Steiner's sources scattered throughout the notes to various volumes of Steiner's collected works as well as the publications of anthroposophist archivists and such; I only know about the book I discussed yesterday because Uwe Werner mentions it in his latest book. (He meant it, tellingly, as an example of Steiner informing himself by drawing on non-racist sources!) And as I have pointed out before, even the more historically informed anthroposophists sometimes have trouble making basic sense of Steiner's writings, in the most literal sense, because of unfamiliarity with the historical context. Here is an otherwise insignificant instance I discussed a few months ago, from Robin Schmidt's recent book Rudolf Steiner und die Anfänge der Theosophie (Rudolf Steiner Verlag 2010). p. 136:


      Schmidt reports here that he can't figure out what a handwritten note by Steiner refers to. In this case, it isn't a matter of Steiner's handwriting (in the old German script, lots of letters were effectively indistinguishable in certain contexts) but a matter of unfamiliarity with Steiner's early work and his intellectual milieu. Attempting to decipher Steiner's handwritten note, Schmidt refers to an essay about "Lotti". Steiner was in fact referring to an essay titled "Loki", his contribution to a volume dedicated to Steiner's friend Ludwig Jacobowski. The text in question is Rudolf Steiner, "Loki", in Marie Stona, ed., Ludwig Jacobowski im Lichte des Lebens (Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt, 1901), 53-69. Schmidt seems entirely unaware of the volume and of Steiner's contribution to it. This is a relatively minor oversight, but it does illustrate a basic pattern in anthroposophical interpretations of Steiner.


      Eric also asked about a concrete matter:


      > Re."Steiner's library"
      >
      > I am sure Peter can say more about Steiner's actual sources. What I
      > noticed while checking Steiner's library at the R.St.archive, is that
      > (apparently deliberately ripped out) large sections are missing from
      > the books in his private library.
      >
      > Given the fact that carrying around a lot of books can indeed be heavy
      > (and might be noticeable by the people who end up carrying the luggage
      > of `clairvoyant' Steiner during his travels) I wondered if this maybe
      > is an indication that he ripped out the portions he thought he might
      > use or somehow felt he wanted to have with him, yet would fit in his
      > own briefcase.


      Steiner did indeed do this fairly frequently, taking pages from various books along with him on lecture tours. Helmut Zander describes several instances in his history of anthroposophy in Germany. It isn't an unusual practice, much less an objectionable one (except perhaps to strict bibliophiles horrified at the thought of removing pages from books), and indicates Steiner's willingness to incorporate a wide spectrum of sources into his own teachings. Some anthroposophists nonetheless find it troubling, because it disrupts the naive notion of Steiner as a herald of Timeless Truths and clairvoyant wisdom and returns Steiner to the status of a historical figure. Greetings to all,


      Peter S.
    • Roger Rawlings
      ... Steiner insisted that he developed his doctrines not through reading or speculation, but through his own clairvoyant observations, as when he wrote [M]y
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 17, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        A few years back, I pulled together a brief list of some of Steiner's sources. I was not attempting to be encyclopedic or complete, but simply to indicate that, as far as we can see — and contrary to his own claims — Steiner acquired information the same way everyone else does: by reading, going to museums, and so forth. Here is what I wrote then [ https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-science :

        ----

        Steiner insisted that he developed his doctrines not through reading or speculation, but through his own clairvoyant observations, as when he wrote "[M]y knowledge of spiritual things is the result of my own [psychic] perception." [Rudolf Steiner, AN OUTLINE OF ESOTERIC SCIENCE (Anthroposophic Press, 1997), p. 6.] Steiner made the same claim several times. For example:  "[T]he purpose of this book is to depict some portions of the supersensible world ... It is only through knowledge of the supersensible that our sense-perceptible `reality' acquires meaning ... In compiling this book, I have included nothing I cannot testify to on the basis of personal experience in this field. Only my direct experience is presented here." [THEOSOPHY: An Introduction to the Spiritual Processes in Human Life and in the Cosmos (Anthroposophic Press, 1994), pp. 7-8.] The term "supersensible" applies to things we cannot perceive with our ordinary senses. By supersensible faculties, Steiner meant clairvoyance and its precursors. By supersensible world(s) or realm(s), he meant the spirit realm.

        Despite his claim, it is apparent that Steiner drew his doctrines from his extensive reading and other non-clairvoyant activities. When critics and reviewers pointed to his sources, Steiner revised his works, slightly, and insisted all the more firmly that his insights came from his own psychic study of the spirit realm. Innumerable volumes affirming or dissecting mysticism, magic, spiritualism, and the like, were available in Steiner's time. Helena Blavatsky, a founder of Theosophy, published THE SECRET DOCTRINE in 1888 — Steiner, who for a while headed the Theosophical Society in Germany, adapted many of his doctrines from it. Other influential volumes of the period were Richard M. Bucke's COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, which came out in 1901, and Rufus M. Jones' STUDIES IN MYSTICAL RELIGION, published in 1908. There were many more, in English and in German, some stemming from deep in the past.

        Blavatsky was Steiner's greatest source. Steiner's Anthroposophy is, to a great extent, merely a reworking of Blatvastky's Theosophy. The link is clear, for example, in the book mentioned above, Steiner's THEOSOPHY, which "begins by describing the threefold nature of the human being: the body, or sense-world; the soul, or inner world; and the spirit, or universal world of cosmic archetypes. A profound discussion of reincarnation and karma follows, concluding with a description of the soul's journey through regions of the supersensible world after death." [Rudolf Steiner, SOCIAL ISSUES (SteinerBooks, 1991), p. 151.] In brief, THEOSOPHY outlines the path to "higher knowledge" that lies at the core of Anthroposophy. After Steiner broke from Theosophy, he developed variations to Theosophical doctrines; but his debt to Blavatsky remains clear.

        Here are a few more of Steiner's vast array of sources.
         
        o Steiner was a student of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe — he read Goethe's works devotedly, beginning early in his life. "Then for the first time I read Goethe's FAUST." [Rudolf Steiner, THE STORY OF MY LIFE [Anthroposophical Publishing Co., 1928], p. 37.] "I cannot tell you what I felt when this came before my soul and I read again these lines by Goethe: From heaven through the earth they're pressing!" [Rudolf Steiner, THE FOUR SEASONS AND THE ARCHANGELS [Rudolf Steiner Press, 1996], p. 65.] Goethe's work reverberates throughout Steiner's books and lectures — a point I will return to.   

        o Steiner was influenced, as well, by the "nature philosophy" of Friedrich Joseph von Schelling. "Rudolf Steiner ... uses his first visit to Vienna `to purchase a great number of philosophy books'" including works by Schelling. [Rudolf Steiner, A WAY OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE (SteinerBooks, 2006), p. 156.] He strove to learn whether Schelling was right that one can penetrate to the Eternal, and he claimed success. "I discovered this capacity in myself." [Ibid., p. 157.]   

        o Steiner claimed deep knowledge of gnostic Christian writings. When critics said he "was merely reviving the ideas of Christian Gnosticism," he asserted that he proved gnostic truths by using his clairvoyance. [Rudolf Steiner, OCCULT SCIENCE: An Outline (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005), p. 12.]  

        o In his lecture "The History of Spiritualism" Steiner names various spiritualists whose work he claims to comprehend. He mentions Robert Fludd, Emanuel Swedenborg, Justinus Kerner, Johann Friedrich von Mayer, among others, and he alludes to their writings — e.g., "Mayer, who wrote a book from the standpoint of spiritualism about Hades...." [Rudolf Steiner, SPIRITUALISM, MADAME BLAVATSKY, AND THEOSOPHY (Anthroposophic Press, 2001), p. 69.] Of course, Steiner disparages the various forms of spiritualism as compared to his own doctrines.
          
        o Steiner professed knowledge of Johann Valentin Andreae's manuscript, THE CHYMICAL WEDDING OF CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ, that presents Rosicrucian secrets. "[H]ow is it that as a quite young man he composed a document in THE CHYMICAL WEDDING that he published as information concerning true Rosicrucianism? ... There is no need to connect the content of THE CHYMICAL WEDDING with Andreae's age at the time he wrote it...." [CHRISTIAN ROSENKREUTZ (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001), p. 71.]  

        o Henry Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim, an apostle of numerology and magic, wrote in the 16th century. Steiner said he knew his work. "In his writings, Agrippa assigns to each planet what he calls the Intelligence [sic] of the planet. This points to traditions that had existed from ancient times...." [Rudolf Steiner, THE SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND THE PHYSICAL WORLD (Anthroposophic Press, 1996), p. 262.]  

        o Nostradamus, an astrologer and seer, wrote at about the same time as Agrippa. Steiner discussed Nostradamus's writings, including one comfortably accurate forecast. "Nostradamus ... was able to foretell the future. He wrote a number of prophetic verses ... The Theosophical Society is nothing less than a fulfillment of this prophecy of Nostradamus." [Rudolf Steiner, THE TEMPLE LEGEND (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1997), p. 27 — Steiner was a Theosophist before establishing his variant, Anthroposophy.]  

        o The Egyptian Book of the Dead predates Christ by approximately 1,500 years. Steiner was able to discuss its contents. "When it leaves the body — so The Egyptian Book of the Dead testifies — it enters the realm of Osiris...." [ISIS MARY SOPHIA (SteinerBooks, 2004), p. 96.]  

        o Steiner's explorations included works of poetry and fiction, which he used as illustrations of his ideas but also, evidently, as sources of ideas. "One could cite many examples of how the inspiration of the Knights Templar has been drawn into souls. I will read you a passage from the poem `Ahasver' by Julius Mosen...." [Rudolf Steiner, THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007), pp. 61-62.]  "Central to the spiritual work on inner development is what Rudolf Steiner calls (following Bulwer Lytton, who introduced the term in his Rosicrucian novel ZANONI)...." [Rudolf Steiner, START NOW! (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2007), p. 243, Christopher Bamford, editor — the reference is to the concept of the Guardian of the Threshold.]  

        o Steiner, similarly, was well acquainted with numerous myths, legends, and fairy tales that he argued are essentially true. "Myths and sagas are not just 'folk-tales'; they are the memories of the visions people perceived in olden times ... At night they were really surrounded by the world of the Nordic gods of which the legends tell. Odin, Freya, and all the other figures [i.e., Norse gods] in Nordic mythology were not inventions; they were experienced in the spiritual world with as much reality as we experience our fellow human beings around us today." [Rudolf Steiner, THE FESTIVALS AND THEIR MEANING (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1998), p. 198.] Steiner gathered myths and other fabulous tales from his reading and also, evidently, from various mentors. "Reinhold Köhle had roved around with unique comprehensiveness in the myths, fairy-tales, and sagas ... I came in once and asked for a book...." [THE STORY OF MY LIFE, pp. 151-152.] 

        Conceivably, Steiner learned the contents of many texts through the use of clairvoyance rather than through the more straightforward process known as reading. But there is scant reason to think so. Steiner, a Ph.D., was a bookish man.  

        o Steiner also gathered information by visiting museums, although presumably this was no more necessary for him than reading, if knowledge was open to him through clairvoyant means. "At this point, let me make a personal remark. When ... we go into a natural history museum we are confronted by something really miraculous ... I visited the museum in Trieste...." [Rudolf Steiner, THE GODDESS (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2001) pp. 32-33.]

        Here are just a few of the terms and concepts that Steiner derived from his reading, museum hops, etc., and then recycled in his books and lectures.
        o Karma is originally a Hindu concept.
        o Reincarnation is a belief shared by Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists.
        o Ahriman was introduced to the world by Zoroaster.
        o Vulcan was originally the Roman god of fire.
        o The legend of Atlantis began with Plato. Lemuria, or Mu, was an even more ancient lost continent, a notion rooted in Polynesian lore.
        o In classical mythology, Lucifer (or Phosphorus) was the herald of the dawn; Christians later adopted "Lucifer" as the name for Satan as he was before man's fall. o The war of all against all is a conception of Thomas Hobbes.
        o During the nineteenth century, if evolution was accepted at all, it was often reworked as a scheme of divinely directed progress.
        o Etheric bodies and astral bodies are Theosophical concepts.
        o Other Theosophical concepts Steiner adopted include nature spirits (deriving originally from pagan nature worship) and root races.
        oThe four humours were first conceived by the ancient Greeks. oIn occult tradition, the Akashic records are written on Akasha, a universal ether, which mediates clairvoyance.
        o In Western folklore, goblins are mischievous or malicious sprites; gnomes are deformed goblins living underground and guarding treasures.
        o The Guardian of the Threshold comes from the novel ZANONI (reprinted by Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1971).
        o Steiner's pantheon is inhabited by beings taken from Norse myths and similar sources (see Odin and Freya, mentioned above). [For much of this information, I am indebted to the ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA at www.britannica.com .]

        Anthroposophists often cite the work of other mystics and thinkers as confirmation: Steiner must be right, because his work contains themes and patterns also found elsewhere. But Blavatsky and Steiner specifically sought to sweep up elements from multiple sources, working to affirm apparent parallels and to reconcile apparent conflicts. The recurrence of various themes and patterns in sundry traditions may reflect underlying truths, or it may simply reveal the process of borrowing and mutual influence, as well as the unconscious predispositions of human psychology. Steiner's work naturally reflects the sources from which he drew, but often the results are discordant, as in his effort to reconcile reincarnation and Christianity.

        -----

        As I say, the above is by no means a complete survey of Steiner's sources. I will be grateful to Peter and anyone else who can tell us more about the books Steiner owned and read, the museums he visited, and all of his other terrestrial information-gathering efforts.

        - Roger
      • carynlouise24
        ... I have thought the non-dogmatic doctrine to be the true essence of Anthroposophy as each person has individual and unique experience. Rudolf Steiner meant
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 17, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier <pstaud@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > Roger and Eric raised some interesting questions about Steiner's sources. It can be difficult for anthroposophists to acknowledge the importance of these historical factors in making sense of Steiner's teachings. Just today, for example, I got another message from anthroposophist Jonathan Code ("quintessential"), yet another Expert on Epistemology, who believes that understanding texts comes not through reading but through "an engagement with the exercise of exact sensorial imagination." This is the same mistake that Dennis made, that Joel made, that Brad made, and so forth. The error makes it hard for Steiner enthusiasts to figure out what non-anthroposophists are talking about: they think we are demeaning Steiner by paying attention to the context within which he lived and thought and wrote and taught.
          >
          > One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an inventory, of Steiner's library. There are fragmentary indications of Steiner's sources scattered throughout the notes to various volumes of Steiner's collected works as well as the publications of anthroposophist archivists and such;


          I have thought the non-dogmatic doctrine to be the true essence of Anthroposophy as each person has individual and unique experience. Rudolf Steiner meant for us to think for ourselves, to research and investigate for ourselves, in accordance for the age of the spiritual soul in that today anything dogmatic is foreign to the soul where it keenly feels the Living Logos.

          The archive material I have thought; if one was astute one would be able to, eventually, discern four points of view through all the lectures:

          St John – The Spiritual Soul

          St Luke – The Mind Soul

          St Mark – The Sentient Soul

          and

          St Matthew – Harmonises these three

          *


          (PS: Roger nice research but a few fundamental errors – one must be careful of the web one weaves because at the end of the day you will eventually have to untangle it and then it might only be fragments of the truth)


          Caryn
        • Eric
          Re. One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an inventory, of Steiner s library. Yes that is surprising. At the R.St.
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 17, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Re. "One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an
            inventory, of Steiner's library. "

            Yes that is surprising.

            At the R.St. archive ( 3 years ago when I was there) they showed me a list with all the books where it is also each time listed which pages fail in which book.

            Plus in addition they have bound photocopies with the first 3-4 pages (front cover table of content and so on) of each of the books, including a copy of those pages where Steiner made any marks or/and remarks.

            With the flurry of biographies this year I am surprised none of these authors bothered to take a closer look at that, or at least made any mention of it.

            Of course when Zander wrote his thesis the above might not have been available yet for otherwise I think he certainly would have asked to see it I would presume.

            Today I noticed a review of Werner's book, here:

            http://www.info3.de/c5-style/index.php/magazin/info3/archiv/2011/maerz/wichtige-hinweise-falsche-praemissen/

            And that Werner added a "Nachsatz " about your dissertation with "Korrekturen" in his book?

            Find it od however that the reviewer seems to mention only " Faschism" whereas your thesis was very much also about the 1930's Nazi era in Germany.

            And with Steiners "Volksseelenlehre vor 1900 " the reviewer I presume is referring to Steiner political (pan-germanist) period, not a usage of a Theosophical "Volksseelenlehre" in the case of Steiner.

            Regards,

            Eric


            --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier <pstaud@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Roger and Eric raised some interesting questions about Steiner's sources. It can be difficult for anthroposophists to acknowledge the importance of these historical factors in making sense of Steiner's teachings. Just today, for example, I got another message from anthroposophist Jonathan Code ("quintessential"), yet another Expert on Epistemology, who believes that understanding texts comes not through reading but through "an engagement with the exercise of exact sensorial imagination." This is the same mistake that Dennis made, that Joel made, that Brad made, and so forth. The error makes it hard for Steiner enthusiasts to figure out what non-anthroposophists are talking about: they think we are demeaning Steiner by paying attention to the context within which he lived and thought and wrote and taught.
            >
            > One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an inventory, of Steiner's library. There are fragmentary indications of Steiner's sources scattered throughout the notes to various volumes of Steiner's collected works as well as the publications of anthroposophist archivists and such; I only know about the book I discussed yesterday because Uwe Werner mentions it in his latest book. (He meant it, tellingly, as an example of Steiner informing himself by drawing on non-racist sources!) And as I have pointed out before, even the more historically informed anthroposophists sometimes have trouble making basic sense of Steiner's writings, in the most literal sense, because of unfamiliarity with the historical context. Here is an otherwise insignificant instance I discussed a few months ago, from Robin Schmidt's recent book Rudolf Steiner und die Anfänge der Theosophie (Rudolf Steiner Verlag 2010). p. 136:
            >
            >
            > Schmidt reports here that he can't figure out what a handwritten note by Steiner refers to. In this case, it isn't a matter of Steiner's handwriting (in the old German script, lots of letters were effectively indistinguishable in certain contexts) but a matter of unfamiliarity with Steiner's early work and his intellectual milieu. Attempting to decipher Steiner's handwritten note, Schmidt refers to an essay about "Lotti". Steiner was in fact referring to an essay titled "Loki", his contribution to a volume dedicated to Steiner's friend Ludwig Jacobowski. The text in question is Rudolf Steiner, "Loki", in Marie Stona, ed., Ludwig Jacobowski im Lichte des Lebens (Breslau: Schlesische Verlags-Anstalt, 1901), 53-69. Schmidt seems entirely unaware of the volume and of Steiner's contribution to it. This is a relatively minor oversight, but it does illustrate a basic pattern in anthroposophical interpretations of Steiner.
            >
            >
            > Eric also asked about a concrete matter:
            >
            >
            > > Re."Steiner's library"
            > >
            > > I am sure Peter can say more about Steiner's actual sources. What I
            > > noticed while checking Steiner's library at the R.St.archive, is that
            > > (apparently deliberately ripped out) large sections are missing from
            > > the books in his private library.
            > >
            > > Given the fact that carrying around a lot of books can indeed be heavy
            > > (and might be noticeable by the people who end up carrying the luggage
            > > of `clairvoyant' Steiner during his travels) I wondered if this maybe
            > > is an indication that he ripped out the portions he thought he might
            > > use or somehow felt he wanted to have with him, yet would fit in his
            > > own briefcase.
            >
            >
            > Steiner did indeed do this fairly frequently, taking pages from various books along with him on lecture tours. Helmut Zander describes several instances in his history of anthroposophy in Germany. It isn't an unusual practice, much less an objectionable one (except perhaps to strict bibliophiles horrified at the thought of removing pages from books), and indicates Steiner's willingness to incorporate a wide spectrum of sources into his own teachings. Some anthroposophists nonetheless find it troubling, because it disrupts the naive notion of Steiner as a herald of Timeless Truths and clairvoyant wisdom and returns Steiner to the status of a historical figure. Greetings to all,
            >
            >
            > Peter S.
            >
          • Peter Staudenmaier
            ... Yes, Werner s recent book includes a 9 page postscript responding to my dissertation. It doesn t say much. In several instances Werner seems to have
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Eric wrote:


              > And that Werner added a "Nachsatz " about your dissertation with
              > "Korrekturen" in his book?


              Yes, Werner's recent book includes a 9 page postscript responding to my dissertation. It doesn't say much. In several instances Werner seems to have straightforwardly misunderstood my text, perhaps due to language difficulties (nearly every quotation from a source in English contains errors). For example, in addressing my brief discussion of Friedrich Lienhard, Werner notes that Steiner broke from Lienhard in 1924. He apparently thought this contradicted my account. But I had already pointed out in the dissertation that Lienhard broke from anthroposophy a couple years before that. Werner seems to have missed many things like this. In another case, he conflates 'anthroposophist' with 'member of the Anthroposophical Society'. Unfortunately the whole postscript is on that level. On several especially striking occasions, he is plainly surprised by things that have been established in the secondary literature for decades; another example of anthroposophist unfamiliarity with their own chosen topics. There may well be more perspicacious anthroposophist reactions to the dissertation once it appears in book form. But much of the response is likely to follow the expected patterns.


              Peter S.
            • tankazoo
              Rudolf Steiner meant for us to think for ourselves
              Message 6 of 12 , Jan 19, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                "Rudolf Steiner meant for us to think for ourselves"





                --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "carynlouise24" <carynlouise24@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier <pstaud@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > Roger and Eric raised some interesting questions about Steiner's sources. It can be difficult for anthroposophists to acknowledge the importance of these historical factors in making sense of Steiner's teachings. Just today, for example, I got another message from anthroposophist Jonathan Code ("quintessential"), yet another Expert on Epistemology, who believes that understanding texts comes not through reading but through "an engagement with the exercise of exact sensorial imagination." This is the same mistake that Dennis made, that Joel made, that Brad made, and so forth. The error makes it hard for Steiner enthusiasts to figure out what non-anthroposophists are talking about: they think we are demeaning Steiner by paying attention to the context within which he lived and thought and wrote and taught.
                > >
                > > One significant gap in the anthroposophical literature is a study, or even an inventory, of Steiner's library. There are fragmentary indications of Steiner's sources scattered throughout the notes to various volumes of Steiner's collected works as well as the publications of anthroposophist archivists and such;
                >
                >
                > I have thought the non-dogmatic doctrine to be the true essence of Anthroposophy as each person has individual and unique experience. Rudolf Steiner meant for us to think for ourselves, to research and investigate for ourselves, in accordance for the age of the spiritual soul in that today anything dogmatic is foreign to the soul where it keenly feels the Living Logos.
                >
                > The archive material I have thought; if one was astute one would be able to, eventually, discern four points of view through all the lectures:
                >
                > St John – The Spiritual Soul
                >
                > St Luke – The Mind Soul
                >
                > St Mark – The Sentient Soul
                >
                > and
                >
                > St Matthew – Harmonises these three
                >
                > *
                >
                >
                > (PS: Roger nice research but a few fundamental errors – one must be careful of the web one weaves because at the end of the day you will eventually have to untangle it and then it might only be fragments of the truth)
                >
                >
                > Caryn
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.