Rudolf Steiner........Anthroposophy

[stefos]

Hi everyone,

 

I have a number of Dr. Steiner's books.

 

Amazing!

 

He mentions the evolving nature of God, not using those words exactly, as the mineral/vegetable/animal/human kingdoms evolve.

 

He also mentions something interesting about reincarnation which I found interesting:

 

When one is a human being, one can't devolve to something else because the development already was done in the min./veg./animal kingdoms!

 

Comments please,

Stefos

 

Thank you

[tumoessence]

This is a common view of reincarnation within the Theosophical groups from Blavatsky to Bailey, Besant and Steiner.

 

He has a wonderful panoramic view of the world, the universe, history and the future. Its very comprehensive. The danger of the theosophical views are that they have accounted for so much in their world view and it all seems so logical because by the time we get to this sense of what is logical, we have read so many details about the world evolution etc. and our logic is founded in a sense of how all those details fit nicely together. We become willing to see the world in the light of all the reading done, and it feels right, but that feeling is based on the intellectual security gained through reading information. The temptation is there to see those without this intellectual understanding as not in the know.

So they key to reading and going with Theosophically based paths is to always question everything. Don't take the info for granted even when it feels right and makes a lot of sense. For Steiner for me this has meant to a large extent, sticking to written works, not the lectures so much. Understand the epistemological writings based on Goethe. Read Georg Kuhlewind.

[stefos]

This is a common view of reincarnation within the Theosophical groups from Blavatsky to Bailey, Besant and Steiner.

 

He has a wonderful panoramic view of the world, the universe, history and the future. Its very comprehensive. The danger of the theosophical views are that they have accounted for so much in their world view and it all seems so logical because by the time we get to this sense of what is logical, we have read so many details about the world evolution etc. and our logic is founded in a sense of how all those details fit nicely together. We become willing to see the world in the light of all the reading done, and it feels right, but that feeling is based on the intellectual security gained through reading information. The temptation is there to see those without this intellectual understanding as not in the know.

So they key to reading and going with Theosophically based paths is to always question everything. Don't take the info for granted even when it feels right and makes a lot of sense. For Steiner for me this has meant to a large extent, sticking to written works, not the lectures so much. Understand the epistemological writings based on Goethe. Read Georg Kuhlewind.

Thank you sir...I assume...for your insights.

 

Dr. Steiner, to me, spoke out of his experience which was real, not imagined.

 

I'm not saying he was infallible but I deeply believe that he spoke the truth. I don't detect/perceive any nonsense with him.

 

I've never heard ANYTHING bad about him either....anywhere. THIS is rare indeed.

 

Regards,

Stefos

[三江源]

https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism

[gentlewind]

My Belgian cousins went to Steiner schools and none have friends who are of color.

 

Namaste,

 

gentlewind

[Apech]

<....>

 

---

 

As a side question though, does a persons view on race discredit their view on spirituality?

 

It means in the very least that they haven't examined what the term 'race' actually means in a human context. It actually means very little apart from a way of grouping people on the basis of very superficial similarities of appearance. Then it is mixed with cultural traits which makes it even more vague and confusing as a term. So if they use race as a way categorising people in terms of spiritual development or their value (however defined) then it shows that they make superficial value judgements about individuals which will not stand proper examination. So the question is do they do this in other areas of thought? And really are they as wise as they make out?

 

I think the answer is that they may have other valuable things to say .... but it must be at least tinged with a suspicion that they are limited in their true understanding.

 

BTW Blavatsky and others used the term race for something quite different and with no connection to ethnicity.

[Apech]

I should have worded the question differently I think. From what I can see, without knowing a great deal about Rudolph Steiner, it appears that although race, gender, culture, and other "hereditary factors" appear in his philosophy that they are in no way central to it.

 

Based on the quotes "In the context of his ethical individualism, Steiner considered "race, folk, ethnicity and gender" to be general, describable categories into which individuals may choose to fit, but from which free human beings can and will liberate themselves.^[25]" and ^"Throughout his life Steiner consistently emphasized the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples and sharply criticized racial prejudice. He articulated beliefs that the individual nature of any person stands higher than any racial, ethnic, national or religious affiliation.^[8][56] His belief that race and ethnicity are transient and superficial, not essential aspects of the individual^[90]" it does not seem to me that he was grouping on the basis of their physical appearance, so much as expressing different elements of spiritual growth that are able to take place through incarnations in different cultures.

 

I agree that I would be highly skeptical of a spiritual philosophy that centered around physical appearance or even culture, but this does not appear to be that to me.

 

Well, according to the link posted by Cat his ideas have been used by some in a racist way.

[stefos]

From Wikipedia, including functional links to cited sources:

 

Race and ethnicity

Steiner's work includes both universalist, humanist elements and historically influenced racial assumptions.^[89] Due to the contrast and even contradictions between these elements, "whether a given reader interprets Anthroposophy as racist or not depends upon that reader's concerns."^[90] Steiner considered that every people, by dint of a shared language and culture, has a unique essence, which he called its soul or spirit,^[85] saw race as a physical manifestation of humanity's spiritual evolution and at times discussed race in terms of complex hierarchies largely derived from nineteenth century biology, anthropology, philosophy, and Theosophy, yet he consistently and explicitly subordinated race, ethnicity, gender—indeed, all hereditary factors—to individual factors in development.^[90] For Steiner, human individuality is centered in a person's unique biography, an individuality's experiences and development not bound by a single lifetime, not the qualities of the physical body.^[25] More specifically:

• Steiner occasionally characterized specific races, nations, and ethnicities in ways that have been termed racist by critics^[91] including descriptions of certain races and ethnic groups as flowering, others as backward, destined to disappear, or even degenerate;^[90] and presented explicitly hierarchical views of the spiritual evolution of different races,^[92] including—at times, and inconsistently—portraying the white race, European culture, or Germanic culture as representing the high point of human evolution as of the early 20th century, though describing these as destined to be superseded by future cultures.^[90]
• Throughout his life Steiner consistently emphasized the core spiritual unity of all the world's peoples and sharply criticized racial prejudice. He articulated beliefs that the individual nature of any person stands higher than any racial, ethnic, national or religious affiliation.^[8][56] His belief that race and ethnicity are transient and superficial, not essential aspects of the individual^[90] was partly rooted in his conviction that each individual incarnates in a variety of different peoples and races over successive lives, and that each of us thus bears within him- or herself the heritage of many races and peoples.^[90][93] Toward the end of his life, Steiner predicted that race will rapidly lose any remaining significance for future generations.^[90] In Steiner's view, culture is universal, and explicitly not ethnically based; he saw Goethe and idealist philosophy, in particular, as the source of ideas that could be drawn upon by any culture, and vehemently critiqued imperialism.^[94]

In the context of his ethical individualism, Steiner considered "race, folk, ethnicity and gender" to be general, describable categories into which individuals may choose to fit, but from which free human beings can and will liberate themselves.^[25]

 

---

 

As a side question though, does a persons view on race discredit their view on spirituality?

 

Right on Viator.

 

You've brought light to Dr. Steiner's viewpoint.

 

He was never a racist. As a matter of fact, Hitler had him on his "To assasinate" list! It's true.

 

Thanks

Stefos

[stefos]

Well, according to the link posted by Cat his ideas have been used by some in a racist way.

True.

 

The point being that race & culture are different.

 

For example, I'm Greek. Am I a Caucasian? People would say "yes."

What about the Arab? Caucasian?

The Egyptian? Hamitic?

 

Even Africans differentiate between cultures the worst culmination being wars on minority groups within a country.

 

The only reason why culture is so important is that the sacrifice that people made as a stance against having loss of national identity due to slavery or war.

 

Ex. Henry Kissinger stating that "To subdue the Greeks, we must have them lose their identity" (Paraphrased but the "To subdue the Greeks" is a direct quote)

 

So my point is: If some jerk like this would make a statement like he did, He & others have an obvious agenda. Right?

 

I bet you never heard that one before from ol' Kissy Kissinger?

Stefos

[Nungali]

One of the things I like about Steiner is his ability to present something in a simple form (not that he reads that way at times ! )

 

I am thinking of Bio-dynamic processes (anyone here have experience with that ? ), in essence he - and latter B.D. developers - have outlined a process that is simple and easy to follow yet incorporates great alchemical principles and, when practiced by the intelligent and observant reveal 'secrets' of alchemy not understood by other alchemical processes (well ... by me anyway). And all of this without the highly technical equipment, laboratory, etc. (no more than easily available on the average farm - a little difficult for urban locations).

 

Oh yes ... and it appears to work and creates a 'stone' of great value (more than 'gold' )

 

The only difficulty I had working in certain fields of anthroposophy was with the anthroposophists who would do what 'Steiner said' but would not go beyond INTO where Steiner got his info ... and get more.

 

But we cant really blame an organisation and followers for doing that I suppose ... it is maybe an essential part of organisations and followers ?

 

[Aside; I hope it is okay to revive old threads here ... some of them I find REALLY interesting and stimulating ( the ones I particularly like, I am still working through and reading the references and related material). I wont do it too much ... only when the board here has been quiet for a while.

[stefos]

The only difficulty I had working in certain fields of anthroposophy was with the anthroposophists who would do what 'Steiner said' but would not go beyond INTO where Steiner got his info ... and get more.

 

But we cant really blame an organisation and followers for doing that I suppose ... it is maybe an essential part of organisations and followers ?

 

Hi,

 

The main issue sir/ma'am/miss is that the "WHERE" Dr. Steiner got his "stuff" was from higher worlds.

 

Hence the "basic 5 works" which delineate his worldview: Philosophy of Freedom, Outline of Spiritual Science, How to know Higher worlds, Theosophy and The Way to Knowledge (I believe its' called).

 

Dr. Steiner said essentially that one has to go through esoteric training to get what he got...Read his "How to know Higher Worlds." In that text, fundamental moods of soul are required as is moral & ethical training.

Also, If you do a cross comparison, Dr. Steiner's view of esoteric training encompasses both Raja & Jnana Yog:

For example, he mentions the "6 qualities that I student should work to gain"....These "qualities" are part of Jnana Yog training.

 

However, Dr. Steiner mention that the Christ on the Cross was THE pivotal point in human evolution, a theme of his which he stressed over & over. Human evolution through successive reincarnations to Dr. Steiner is key to Blavatskian Theosophy in general not Christian Theosophy of Boehme.

 

Krishnamurti said that reincarnation was NOT a good thing but something to be transcended by "Stepping out of the Stream, " Which is to say the stream of ego & selfishness..........

 

Krishnamurti also said NO Kundalini awakening will happen if the ego & selfishness exists at all!

Tough words but his not mine.....

You can youtube his video on Kundalini....I think it's Krishnamurti Kundalini....

 

Be blessed,

Stefos

Edited October 8, 2013 by stefos

[Seth Ananda]

Hmm Krishnamurti really should not have been talking about Kundalini, considering his life long headaches that he blamed on Kundalini, which he never managed to integrate... that and the fact he was never trained within a Kundalini tradition either...

On 'Philosophy of freedom' I am reading 'Intuitive thinking as a spiritual path' which is a new english translation, and I am finding it much better to read than the old one...

 

I really do like Steiners works, as hard to read as he is sometimes...

[Nungali]

Hi,

 

The main issue sir/ma'am/miss is that the "WHERE" Dr. Steiner got his "stuff" was from higher worlds.

 

Hence the "basic 5 works" which delineate his worldview: Philosophy of Freedom, Outline of Spiritual Science, How to know Higher worlds, Theosophy and The Way to Knowledge (I believe its' called).

 

Dr. Steiner said essentially that one has to go through esoteric training to get what he got...Read his "How to know Higher Worlds." In that text, fundamental moods of soul are required as is moral & ethical training.

Also, If you do a cross comparison, Dr. Steiner's view of esoteric training encompasses both Raja & Jnana Yog:

For example, he mentions the "6 qualities that I student should work to gain"....These "qualities" are part of Jnana Yog training.

 

However, Dr. Steiner mention that the Christ on the Cross was THE pivotal point in human evolution, a theme of his which he stressed over & over. Human evolution through successive reincarnations to Dr. Steiner is key to Blavatskian Theosophy in general not Christian Theosophy of Boehme.

 

Krishnamurti said that reincarnation was NOT a good thing but something to be transcended by "Stepping out of the Stream, " Which is to say the stream of ego & selfishness..........

 

Krishnamurti also said NO Kundalini awakening will happen if the ego & selfishness exists at all!

Tough words but his not mine.....

You can youtube his video on Kundalini....I think it's Krishnamurti Kundalini....

 

Be blessed,

Stefos

 

'Higher worlds' is partly where he got his stuff from. I am referring to the Western Mystery tradition and technologies. Anyone who has worked with Biodynamics and alchemy will see the clear correlation. Anyone who has studied the magical correspondences and magical properties of substances will realise that many more preparations than 501 can be made with many more substances (minerals or 'gems') than quartz crystals. Not all his knowledge came from some only accessible Steiner higher realm.

 

The issue I am talking about is some people NOT seeing that 501 works due to age old 'magical' principles but only seeing it works as 'Steiner said so' or 'that is all he told us to do' or 'it doesn't say anything about using topaz in the Agricultural Lectures'.

 

But ... arhhh ... <shrugs> ... that's why I made the comment ; ' But we cant really blame an organisation and followers for doing that I suppose ... it is maybe an essential part of organisations and followers ?"

 

I understand one has to go through esoteric training ... that's why I can get what is behind a lot of what Steiner says as I have done it myself. I was trying to encourage people to get their own gnosis and go through that training ... not just take someone's word for it ... but again ... followers and organisations. But it is within those very followers that some DO take this path and hence the system develops ( the good doctor never told anyone to use casurina needles to make a homeopathic spray prep to disperse mould and mildew on plants when they get excess nitrogen, but people into his system worked it out for themselves by applying the same principles that Steiner did).

 

Here is an example; lunch at Anthroposophist meeting ... secretary chimes in (in 'wise teaching' voice) "Steiner says that when one becomes an initiate the first thing that happens is one must encounter the Guardian of the Threshold."

 

"Gosh!" says another ... thinks .... "How does one become an initiate?"

 

Secretary thinks a bit ... ( now in broad Aussie accent) " Oh .... Um ... I dunno. "

 

I would have thought my comments on alchemy and agricultural gold might have stimulated more interest in Steiner's wonderful insights and gifts from western esoteric knowledge to the practical, real and beneficial application he gave .

 

I understand the Yoga he incorporated and it wasn't just those two ... the systems Steiner followed have their western correlation in the branches of 'types of Magick' and these equate to the limbs of yoga, both with their benefits and pitfalls - which in a way seem passed on to the students and followers - hence we have those that only follow or get obsessed or entrapped in the glamour and those that realise the internal truths and system and immerse themselves in that ... it is a common dynamic and Anthroposophy is no exception.

 

To make it clearer I am talking about the 'magical technology' used ... and that works wether one gives significance to Christ on the cross or not ... that is an analogy that demonstrates a 'magical / spiritual' process ... to have or use another analogy (even the compost heap *) does not interfere with the application of the technology.

 

* I am not being disrespectful to Christian Anthroposophists here, I am citing an article BY them (in 'Newsleaf' magazine from Biodynamic Agriculture Australia titled 'Christ in the Compost' .

 

 

[ I should add that I am obviously of the school of Scientific Illuminism and not an imitator of someone who has achieved illumination ... and that's how Steiner got insights OF the processes ... not by imitating another illumined person. ]

Edited October 9, 2013 by Nungali

[doc benway]

Up from the depths...

I know little of Steiner and Anthroposophy but spent this past weekend at an elder care and farming community inspired by Steiner's ideas in the lower Hudson Valley. It was such a lovely place and experience. 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

Also the Waldorf schools and anthroposophic camcer clinics are among the best there are in their respective categories.

 

As far as Steiner's teachings in general are concerned (of which I have made some deeper study), I would say that some are a bit dated, while other material is still eminently useful.

 

At any rate, it's remarkable for any one individual to have such an impact in various fields, based on ancient esoteric wisdom.

 

Posting this during a train ride... And I will be passing Arlesheim in a bit, where Steiner founded his 'Goetheanum'. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Michael Sternbach

[Nungali]

On 14/05/2013 at 8:01 AM, stefos said:

Thank you sir...I assume...for your insights.

 

Dr. Steiner, to me, spoke out of his experience which was real, not imagined.

 

I'm not saying he was infallible but I deeply believe that he spoke the truth. I don't detect/perceive any nonsense with him.

 

I've never heard ANYTHING bad about him either....anywhere. THIS is rare indeed.

 

Regards,

Stefos

 

Really .   I have worked with Steiner's system, both in BD ag and some child education .

 

he certainly used the power of his imagination !    His expereince , some of them, came directly from his imagination ;

 

eg, 

 

trace elements in soil

 

 

try this

https://www.google.com/search?q=Rudolf+steiner+chalk+drawings&client=ubuntu&hs=NYM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8vLnBiKDdAhXHAYgKHUWqB9AQ_AUICigB&biw=1366&bih=603

 

 

(one should not underestimate the power of imagination    )

Edited September 4, 2018 by Nungali

[Nungali]

On 14/05/2013 at 9:36 PM, 三江源 said:

https://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/steiners-racism

 

Indeed !   Its subtle and creeps in where normally reasonable people  (like 'Steiner School teachers ) often have no idea that they have been  influenced.

 

One story, on the news here, some time back, a man was concerned that his little daughter painted a pretty picture that they both were proud of, but the teacher said it wasnt good as she used brown ,  a bad or dirty colour.  The concerned father went to talk to the teacher, only to get the same lecture about how the brown colour was so bad in so many ways .

 

The father then said , in his interview for the story, later ;  "  Good heavens !   Didnt she realise she was saying all this to a Pakistani ! "

 

I have also heard them say the same thing about Sicilians ... one can tell by looking at 'the type' ... no wonder the Mafia started there !

 

(This was presented as 'evidence' of Steiners theories about people that lived near vulcanism ..... its  ' Ahrimanic' .....  so are bats ... better get rid of them on the farm .... and so on .  )

 

However , I do like the idea of an Ahrimananum ... some of the ideas are excellent ... in the right context !

 

Goetheanum

 

 

 

Ahrimananum

 

- probably best to separate them.

[Nungali]

Urrrghhh    .....   got me with a    crypto  !   

 

(serves me right for not checking date stamp)

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Also the Waldorf schools and anthroposophic camcer clinics are among the best there are in their respective categories.

 

As far as Steiner's teachings in general are concerned (of which I have made some deeper study), I would say that some are a bit dated, while other material is still eminently useful.

 

At any rate, it's remarkable for any one individual to have such an impact in various fields, based on ancient esoteric wisdom.

 

Posting this during a train ride... And I will be passing Arlesheim in a bit, where Steiner founded his 'Goetheanum'. 

 

have you ever checked it out  ? 

 

 

 

There is a 'first' and 'second' one 

 

1

 

2

 

[tumoessence]

On 5/13/2013 at 3:01 PM, stefos said:

Thank you sir...I assume...for your insights.

 

Dr. Steiner, to me, spoke out of his experience which was real, not imagined.

 

I'm not saying he was infallible but I deeply believe that he spoke the truth. I don't detect/perceive any nonsense with him.

 

I've never heard ANYTHING bad about him either....anywhere. THIS is rare indeed.

 

Regards,

Stefos

I really like Steiner. It is more a question of how to digest his info in a healthy manner and not turn it simply into another belief system unless you're content with being a believer. Also look deeply into the history of his movement and what happened after he died. Again I really respect his work, but those closest to him may not served his cause very well. I plan on reading selected of his written works quite a few times more than once, and work with it. I will be happy with that.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

19 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

have you ever checked it out  ? 

 

 

 

There is a 'first' and 'second' one 

 

1

 

2

 

 

Although I have had some minor contact with the Goetheanum on some occasions, my path hasn^t taken me there physically so far. But I am pretty sure that, one day, it will.

[Nungali]

18 hours ago, tumoessence said:

I really like Steiner. It is more a question of how to digest his info in a healthy manner and not turn it simply into another belief system unless you're content with being a believer.

 

Then you need to study the influences around him .   One could start with the current hermetics of the time (even though its come a long way since then ), and some related systems .  Eg .  If I had not this understanding ( the hermetics of that time, the western mystery schools of that time,  some Christian esotericism , the western initiation system, etc .  I am sure books of his like 'The Theosopohy of the Rosicrucian'  would seem so specific and so obscure (that only a 'high level Anthroposophist  could glean any meaning from them)  to me, I would not have had a clue.  But reading in context of  what I learnt in those other fields, it seemed rather 'insightful' .

 

 

 

Quote

 

Also look deeply into the history of his movement and what happened after he died. Again I really respect his work, but those closest to him may not served his cause very well. I plan on reading selected of his written works quite a few times more than once, and work with it. I will be happy with that.

 

 

Same happened with Blavatski and Theosophy .  

Edited September 4, 2018 by Nungali

[Nungali]

3 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Although I have had some minor contact with the Goetheanum on some occasions, my path hasn^t taken me there physically so far. But I am pretty sure that, one day, it will.

 

The Sydney Bahai Temple got me  like that ... its in a remote area, on a high hill, visible from some distance  ... I was "What the heck is that in the Australian bush ! ? !  .... a Synagogue astronomical observatory ?    So I had to go look . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Nungali

[Nungali]

OMG!  They added a disabled ramp up the front stairs  since I been there !

 

Way to ruin architectural symmetry !     What a mess !    Atrocious !

 

 

They should have taken a hint  in design from the ancient Egyptians  .... now ,  they  knew how to artistically  incorporate a disabled access  !  ;

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Nungali

[Still_Waters]

I was curious to see what the posters here had to say about Rudolf Steiner, as I recently was invited to a senior meditation group of his where they couldn't really answer any of my in-depth questions to my satisfaction. The meditation itself was extraordinarily basic and geared more to beginners than to an advanced group.  I have read "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How It is Achieved" and there's a lot of good, basic information there. However, I didn't finish the book because it didn't go deep enough and there were things in it that ran contrary to intuition (at least for me). For others, as I am reading here, it might be well suited to their spiritual development.

 

I investigated Stein because, for a brief moment, I had an urge to know more about the Akashic records. His following recommended a book to me, which I purchased but the name of which I can't recall because I got rid of it rather quickly. Although the followers were nice, I was very disappointed in what I experienced and also in what I read.

 

Steiner is intellectually brilliant but I had serious concerns about his depth so I checked out some critiques of Rudolf Steiner online, as I often do when something troubles me. I came across a critique by Osho which resonated with my own intuitive impression of Rudolf Steiner. It might interest posters to read this and I am therefore posting the link.

 

Feel free to share any comments that you may have, as I am certainly receptive to constructive comments.

 

https://southerncrossreview.org/76/osho-steiner.html

 

While readily conceding that Rudolf STEINER WAS A GREAT MIND, Osho goes on to confirm my own conclusions --- that Steiner does not really understand meditation.

 

QUOTE:

 

" Rudolf Steiner does not know what meditation is, and what he calls meditation is concentration. He's completely confused: he calls concentration meditation. Concentration is not meditation. Concentration is again a very, very useful means for scientific thinking. It is to concentrate the mind, narrow the mind, focus the mind on a certain thing. But the mind remains, becomes more focused, becomes more integrated.

Meditation is not concentrating on anything. In fact, it is a relaxing, not narrowing. In concentration there is an object. In meditation there is no object at all. You are simply lost in an objectless consciousness, a diffusion of consciousness. Concentration is exclusive to something, and everything else is excluded from it. It includes only one thing; it excludes everything else."

Edited December 21, 2018 by Still_Waters