Rudolf Steiner and Racism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 авг 2024
- After studying Steiner's 'Riddles of Philosophy' & 'Philosophy of Freedom' together, the Urphänomen group turned its attention to two lectures delivered to German anthroposophists on Feb 13 & 14, 1915 in Stuttgart (GA 174b). The issues addressed are controversial and deserve careful consideration. Much has already been written from diverse perspectives on the topic of race in Steiner’s work. We have decided to make our conversation public with the intention of modeling a new kind of dialogue among anthroposophists as well as with the broader public. Our interpretations of these and other lectures by Steiner may differ, but we all believe that the future of humanity depends in large part on how we find our way through these problems. This is just a beginning.
To future posters who comment simply to call Steiner hateful and/or crazy:
My hope is that you will be politely ignored, because your goal has nothing to do with deepening an understanding of this issue.
I think that this particular conversation only really makes sense between people who have a basic shared understanding of Steiner as a good man who was honestly grappling with his experiences as objectively as any human should be expected to.
Yes, there are post MLK definitions of racism that define racism in such a way that everybody (from the 'oppessor' group) is inherently racist in various ways. I'm not saying there is absolutely no value in this definition. But I think it is an awful way to understand the term.
So, to be clear, I personally am using the MLK notion of racism.
And I fully acknowledge why a smart and well intentioned person could read what Steiner says about the mission and current capcities of white humanity and take him as a racist in the MLK sense. It would actully be strange if you didn't.
So if you want to dialog with me about how I can read that lecture and not consider Steiner as a racist. I'm happy to talk and would even Zoom if time/life allows.
And my goal is to ignore all trolls. Which I don't find easy to do :)
Steiner makes a clear point that people who are not a part of the highly specific group he is speaking to in these lectures will necessarily distort and misunderstand them.
Is it unfair if we include Steiner in that kind of understanding when it comes to his attempts to see how the Christ is moving and working in groups outside of his highly specific group of identification?
Personally, I am very wary of claims that are too strict when it comes to which groups of humans can or cannot understand which other groups. I certainly understand why we must be very careful in noticing what assumptions and life experience we bring into our interpretations of other people, but I take great joy in seeing how often and common it is for, say, a young white boy in Missouri to more fully grasp his black friend's life experience than many of the other black children at the school. And vica versa. I see no evidence that any 'race' struggles to deeply grasp the specifics of other groups. But I admit this observation of mine is certainly influenced by filters and blind-spots to some extent in me.
But since Steiner is often very clear regarding his opinion of the degrees of possibility and impossibility in various domains of understanding, can we fairly include him in his comments regarding his own probable difficulties in stepping outside of his 'group'? I know that it is often stated that because he is an initiate he had an ability to step outside of himself in ways we can't imagine.
But, as you can suspect, this is the very context in which I question that assumption. I see that very wise people and developed people often have sharp and pronounced filters in specific domains.
He will always be my spiritual philosopher. I fortunately been able to look pass race on certain historical figures. So I can identify with them, connect with them, learn and apply what I can to the reality which I live. Steiner's work is amazing and all cultures and races should look into his lectures.
Seems like people are wisely creating short sections that can capture different facets of the question here in the comment section.
I personally can't find a contradiction between a well-intended person who believes all humans are equal and yet said person would have filters (cognitive-emtional-social-phsyciological-etheric-astral blind-spots, historical factors, etc) that cause them to make faulty observations and interpretations of some of those humans around them.
Speaking personally, I believe deeply in the essence of human equality (and I've had my experiences that seem similar to others in the Anthro-movement that are considered pretty core in this regards), and yet, I am still finding ways that I don't see situations as clearly as I could. I don't find this to be a contradiction in my character. It certainly doesn't come from ill-will. And I don't think it comes from stupidity. I can be very stupid, yes!
But it seems wonderfully baked into the human cake. In fact, it seems essential to both individual and social development that a living dialectic is always happening in each evolving individual. To me this implies that all great researchers should always have pockets and aspects of their understandings and observations that are distorted to various degrees. And still helpful! Even distorted instruments are bringing aspects of objectivity. I think that probably relates to these lectures as well.
What a beautiful introduction.
And a great conversation. Thanks to all who contributed.
For me, the question isn't if Steiner was racist or not. I personally don't see reason to think of him has having animosity towards any particular group.
As I state at the end of my comments, I'd love to have conversation about this via Zoom with anybody who thinks it is a worthy topic. The following will be my general comments. In the 'reply' I'll comment on other ideas brought up in this wonderful conversation.
For me, the real questions are about how we relate to Steiner in specific ways in which he may be making specific errors. Steiner said initiates makes errors and those errors can and must be noticed by their students. And he made clear (I can share the quote and lecture in just a bit, but I expect most have seen these quotes) that the students need not be clairvoyant to spot these errors. He explained that they would be noticed by anybody with healthy observation and reasoning.
The most interesting part of this lecture to me is two-fold
1) Like any good empirical researcher, Steiner not only shares his conclusions, he lets us know specifically what he is observing to support his explanations. Therefore, he doesn't just say that there is a specific mission for humanity that only white people can fulfill and that won't even be complete for another 2000 years; no, he states that he has clearly observed the spiritual-physiological process that manifists in the formation of skin colors today. Not only that, he explicitly states that he observes that where non-white skin is forming, there is a deflection of the The Christ Impulse. He isn't merely saying, "Look, it's just a surface thing; they reject the Christ in their skin but they are just as capable of integrating the Christ in every other way. I'm merely talking about skin color." No, he carefully is showing how this deflection of the The Christ plays a key role in the very nature of white humanities mission. He isn't judging. He isn't speaking disdainfully. He is merely -- like any honest researcher -- trying to show the details that lead to his conclusions. For me, even if some of us have a very different set of observations regarding how and where the Christ is alive and well, this doesn't imply anything about racism. Therefore, considering Steiner acknowledged we should be finding errors in his work, and considering that there are specific spots where at least some Anthroposophsits see logical and/or empirical errors, my question is should we expect this to manifest within the Anthroposophical movement in various kinds of dialog? I don't mean the dialog of defense. I'm not talking about all of th hard work that has gone into defending Steiner from charges of racism. I'm talking about my strong feeling that a healthy Anthroposophcial movement would have rich discourses about the implications of misunderstandings and errors that Steiner himself was making, that these conversations would be exploring how of course blind-spots should be expected to have manifested in Steiner and that these would have various kinds of impacts on how he experienced the spiritual world and upon how he interpreted his experiences. These would NOT be contentious conversations framed in antipathy towards Steiner. It is my contention (and I think this is obvious) that deeper understandings of Steiner (especially those that have the force to push through any of the blind-spots -- those in Steiner and those in his students) will only come from those who are deeply committed to Anthroposophy. To conclude this first point, I just want to highlight that for me (and others I know), a core conversation from this lecture should be around the idea of skin color forming in the way and for the reasons that Steiner claims.
2) Steiner is very specific as to why it will take at least 2000 more years for white humanity to fulfil its mission. And he is specific about why non-white people will not be participating in that activity. Again, I have no desire to explore those implication in the context of 'was he racist!??' coversation. He wasn't. Unless we use one of the new tortuous definitions of 'racism', it can be easily shown that Steiner cared deeply about the experiences of all people, and saw deep value in all people.
So, that question aside, if I told you that I had studied the architecture of your house and that it would certianly begin falling apart in a month or two, and if you had reason to think I was an expert in this stuff, you'd be wise to pay attention to your house. If I gave you specific things to observe, like, the paint will change colors, the ceiling will wil fall off in two inch chunks. the floors will squeak, you would be wise to pay attention. If a few months went by and you observed none of these changes, you should feel free to think that I could have been wrong. This wouldn't be personal. It wouldn't mean that I was dumb about everything else I've ever said. It wouldn't mean that I was trying to scare or impress you. It would just mean that you have a set of different observations. You might be curious as to what observations I made that led me to my conclusions. There are many things Steiner talks about that we have no way of sharing observations about. That's fair. There are also many observations he makes that we can share in core elements of. For me, this is often when he is most impressive. For instance, when he points to how children move and hold their bodies and how this changes and relates to shifts in consciousnesses, I'm blown away. I can observe and track the core elements. Therefore, in those cases where we find ourselves finding either small errors in reasoning or simply different observations of the facts, a healthy scientific movement gets excited in those spots. They don't worry about it. They explore it more and find if it is true that the earlier claims were off to some extent. They then go in lots of useful different directions. Some will want to explore the 'instrument' of perception and find how it might have blind-spots or subtle warps that shaped the observations. Others will want to see if these errors are instances of a more general pattern that can be studied. Endlessly fruitful directions, none of which undermine the teacher or the topic. The only way they undermine Steiner, in this context, is if we have a Steiner narrative that simply can't include that, for instance, he was simply wrong that non-white skin will be deflecting The Christ Impulse until a far future when white humanity can impregnate them with The Christ Impulse. If there is a Steiner narrative that can't allow for us to grow deeper insights into Steiner and his clairvoyant development, then I do worry about how Anthroposophy can evolve. It seems to me that the Steiner narrative should be changing in relation to an evolving and adapting movement.
Finally, to the degree that we feel forced to respond to these lectures as defenses of Steiner, I am not interested; I don’t think he needs any of that type of defense. The interesting aspect should be that he has given a very specific description of the formation of white skin, what it means for the future, how it relates to non-white skin, and how all of this relates to the Christ. Most importantly, anybody who is well acquainted with Steiner work and who is doing their inner work to some extent can check their own observations of people in the world and see how they match up to the core aspect of these claims. Just as it only takes one white crow to show that not all crows are white, if we find that non-white people seem to be just as actively participating in the Christ as white people, and if we find that some white people seem to be just as actively deflecting the Christ as some non-white people, we can find that we have a disagreement with Steiner. And this can take us more deeply into questions about what exactly were the intricate variables that made up his thinking, his experience, and his clairvoyant development.
We know he was a careful thinker and a great researcher. So we wouldn't be trying to knock him down a peg. We'd be trying to open up a much more intricate understanding of what his clairvoyance actually was and how we might need to shift some of our ideas about it. Nothing about this is a mark against Steiner. I'd love to have a zoom chat with anybody interested in these questions.
It's important not to ascribe infallibility to Rudolf Steiner (or any other great teacher, teaching, thought-leader or book) no matter how significant his body of work and overall contributions. Rather than view his comments from a black and white diamonds in coal metaphor, one could choose to view them the metaphor of a fruit bearing tree; wherein one exercises caution, discernment, judgement and commonsense as to which pieces of fruit are ripe for eating, which should remain on the tree, and which ought to be thrown to the compost heap -- without ever feeling the need to condemn the tree (or the man.) And simply give thanks for the gifts. In other words, cherry pick all information as to what resonates in your bones and your spiritual heart and disregard the rest. IMHO ;)
Imagine that we did not have these lectures.
Imagine that we have a lecture in which Steiner said something like,
"In Theosophical Circles, you will hear them often talking about a supposed mission that is for white skinned people only. This is a grave error. We must not speak of a mission for white or brown or yellow people. This gives the absolutely false understanding of the mission that all of humanity must achieve over the next 2000 years. There are fascinating mysteries in the process of skin color development. These are significant and help us understand our history and also rather mundane details regarding the spiritual nature of inheritance of our physical bodies. But nothing about the white skin developing on a white baby this very day or the black skin developing on a black baby this very day, nothing about that process tells us anything at all about the child's capacity to connect with the Christ. You will come across many statements by so-called experts that suggest otherwise. These are misguided to their roots."
If we read something like that in a lecture (and we didn't have these lectures above), I doubt we would be puzzled. I doubt we would find ourselves scampering intellectually to understand the details of various terms and such.
In my opinion, this would be because it conforms very deeply to our keenest observations.
We might not have clairvoyance, but (as Steiner strongly stresses) this doesn't stop us at all from testing and finding blind-spots in claims of spiritual researchers.
If Steiner stated that there is no white mission that extends into the next 2000 years and is necessary for an impregnation of all the non-white races that are being 'held back' until then, I don't think we'd scratch our heads. Well, most of us wouldn't. I do know there are still many people who strongly believe that there is a mission that is very central to white skinned people.
For whatever it's worth, with no prior prompting I asked ChatGPT "What would an anthroposophist say about the problem of racism in America?"
ChatGPT:
An anthroposophist might approach the problem of racism in America from a spiritual and holistic perspective. Anthroposophy emphasizes the development of the individual's spiritual capacities and the interconnectedness of all aspects of life.
An anthroposophist would likely acknowledge that racism is a deeply entrenched social issue rooted in historical and systemic factors. They might emphasize the importance of addressing racism both on an individual level and within societal structures. Recognizing that racism distorts the true potential of human beings, an anthroposophist would encourage efforts to foster understanding, empathy, and equality among all people.
Anthroposophy promotes the idea of human unity and the essential spiritual nature shared by all individuals. An anthroposophist might emphasize the need to transcend divisive labels and cultural differences, promoting an inclusive perspective that values the unique contributions and experiences of all races and ethnicities.
In addressing racism, an anthroposophist might advocate for education that promotes cultural awareness, empathy, and social harmony. They may support initiatives that work towards dismantling systemic barriers, fostering inclusive communities, and creating opportunities for dialogue and understanding among people of diverse backgrounds.
It's important to note that Anthroposophy is a diverse and evolving philosophical movement, and individual anthroposophists may hold varying viewpoints on specific social issues. The approach to tackling racism in America can vary among anthroposophists, just as it does within other philosophical or spiritual perspectives.
That's sweet :)
For several years when non-white people were having concerns about Steiner based on coming across these lectures or talk about them online, people at two Waldorf Schools (east coast, west coast) would put them in touch with me.
I can say that those were intense conversations. I was an Anthroposophist who wasn't only saying much of what ChatGPT suggested, but who was needing to go deeply into explaining why I could be deeply inspired by Steiner's insights into education and deeply into reasons I think he was wrong about aspects of race and other issues. But, these were some of the most meaningful dialogs of my life. Often painful, but many of these people chose to try out Waldorf, and they said it was because they felt there was room for their feelings of abhorrence regarding what he said about skin color and how it implicates their role in society.
What they found most upsetting is when they approached Anthroposophists (mostly teachers) who told them that they wouldn't be able to fully understand Steiner's statements until they have spent much time studying the whole of his work and also doing the necessary inner work.
I think the need for new kinds of conversations with the wider public will only increase with time. Of course, it hardly matters with regard to folks who aren't wrestling with these specific issues. But until other lectures are being spoken about all of this stuff, it will be Steiner's words that people will run into and want to ask about.
But, I took your comment off track because you were asking about racisim, whereas I'm talking about errors that Steiner may have made in observing people, skin formation, and all of the rest connected to his claims about the unique mission of white people.
@@rooruffneck Thanks for sharing these experiences. I think this gets to the crux of the issue, so to speak. We all agree that Waldorf education has so much to offer. It pains me to know that, because of the way certain lectures are interpreted or defended by contemporary anthroposophists, many who might otherwise have benefited from educational renewal will turn away from it in disgust. This is tragic and I believe has very negative consequences not only for the future of anthroposophy but humanity itself. We need to get this right.
@Footnotes2Plato
Agreed. And I'm increasingly wondering if that change will be a downstream effect of this becoming a methodological question to the most serious and committed Anthroposophists.
Otherwise, it seems the 'best' response will always just be some version of 'you can't really understand why this is actually true.'
The archangel of any particular age understands exactly how to guide the inherent potentialities of a given folk soul or given people.
Which passages do you find abhorrent from Steiner? Any of the ones that have caused me to raise an eyebrow, I’ve been able to reconcile as him speaking of the group soul working in humans and not of the individuals in those groups.
@16:50 It is important to note that in The Mission of the Folk Souls he distinguishes between Nations and Peoples or Races in a particular way. He suggests there that part of the function of Nations is to play a role in a development toward the overcoming of racial differences. Seems to be our Nation has a potent opportunity to be part of that like a kind of metabolic function.
Yes I certainly hope the US can fulfill this very important part of its mission. But also, see my comment below about the difference between "nation" and "state."
@@Footnotes2Plato
My prediction is that one of the offshoot Anthroposophical streams will no longer talk about national or cultural missions. But NOT due to any semblance of political correctness.
Another way to say this is that if Steiner had never talked about the 'missions' of races or nations or groups, but had said, "We must resist essentializing what seem to be social-wholes into groups with various missionary properties. This will lead us into confusion. It is an understandable mistake, but we we must strive to speak more accurately about the way spiritual impulses may relate to various regions and groups."
If he had said anything like that, all of us happy Anthroposophists would be able to track the same social tends we are tracking now and not frame them as 'missions' by various 'nations', 'races', 'sexes', ect., It would not stop us from noticing patterns in history and associating those intelligently with provisional regions and associations of people.
The same experiential 'data' could be experienced in a different gestalt, so to speak.
This discussion reminds me of the very same dilemma early Christians had with Jews and Gentiles, as Paul said in the book of Roman’s, salvation is “of the Jews”, not that the Jews were superior as many of the religious teachers supposed, but that quite simply, they carried the burden of the seed and gave birth to the Christ who would transcend the race and imbue humanity with the Christ impulse.
From my understanding of Steiner, he places his scrutinizing eye on every possible detail of not only historical events but present (up to his time) phenomenon to take the vitals of the entire body of humanity and all its parts and functions.
His abrasive chastisement in the second lecture definitely sheds light on his frustration that some would elevate themselves above the whole body when in fact he was stating white humanity acted as the womb of anthroposophy which, once coming into the human consciousness, is available to all.
Valentine Tomberg is the answer to anthroposophy
I have been trying to find an English version of this GA 174b and couldn't. I've heard about this "problematic" lecture various seem to reference but there's nowhere to be found. If anyone can point me to where I can find it, I'd greatly appreciate it.
email us I will send it to you
@@urphanomen yes, I will, thank you!
10:00 .. the South Carolina event was my final straw on my relationship with the Black Church. #christimpluse
The last lecture of the Self Consciousness lectures, Steiner articulates some really cool stuff about race.
"You only know that you react. Who reacts and to what, you do not know. You know on contact that you exist: 'I am'. The 'I am this', 'Iam that' are imaginary." -- Nisargadatta
the migration is artifically made .. its part of the kalergi plan
Steiner explains it in the temple legend series ..
quote
You all have a soul and you all have a spirit. This soul and spirit are called upon to reach one day the highest stages of perfection. But you were already there before your first physical incarnation. You were first physically incarnated in the preceding races after the time of the Hyperborean and Polarian epochs. 5 Before that you were purely beings of soul. But as beings of soul you were a part of the world soul, and as spirit you were part of the general world spirit. The world soul and the world spirit were spread around you as Nature is spread around you today. Just as the mineral world, the plant world and the animal world are around you today, so were the worlds of soul and spirit spread around you then. And what was once outside you is now your soul; you have made inward what to begin with was outside. What today is your inward part was once spread about outside. This has now become your soul. The spirit, too, was once spread around you. And what is now spread around you will become your inner life. You will take into yourself what is now the mineral kingdom, and it will become your inner part. The plant kingdom will become your inner part. What surrounds you in Nature will become your inner being.
You will understand now how this is connected with the first example given: you build a church for others, not for yourself. You can take into [yourself] a world full of majesty, beauty and splendour if you make the world majestic, beautiful and splendid. To do something for the higher self is not selfish because it is not done only for the self. This higher self will be united with all other higher selves, so that it is [done] for all at the same time.
It is this that the Freemasons knew. The Freemason knew, when he helped [by] building with the spiritualisation of the mineral world, that this would one day become the content of his soul - and to build means nothing else than to spiritualise the mineral world. That is the significant thing: God once gave us the Nature that surrounds us, as mineral, plant and animal nature. We take these in [to ourselves]. It is not due to us that it is there; all we can do is to appropriate it for ourselves. But what we ourselves create in the world - that is what will, through ourselves, constitute our future being.
The mineral world, as such, we perceive; what we make out of it we will, in the future, be. What we make of the plant world, of the animal world and of the world of men, that too we will be, in the future. If you found a charitable institution or have contributed something to it, what you have contributed, you will be. If a man does nothing which he can draw back in this way into his soul from outside, he will remain empty. It must be possible for man to spiritualise as much as he can of the three kingdoms of nature - four, for mankind also belongs thereto. To bring spirit into the whole external world - that has been the task of the secret societies of every age.
You understand that that must be so. Take a child who is just learning to read and write. To begin with, all the equipment is around him. Today, the child begins to learn to read. Nothing is in him yet, but the teacher, the primers and so forth are there. So it continues until what was outside the child has been instilled into him. And the child acquires the capacity to read. And so it is with Nature, too. In times to come we shall have within us what is now spread around us. We are souls, we spring from the world soul, and we drew it in, when it was spread around us. The spirit was likewise drawn in, and Nature, too, will be drawn in by us, in order to stay within us as an active ability.
That is the great thought at the basis of these secret societies, that all progress is the result of involution and evolution. Involution is the drawing in, evolution is the giving out. All situations in the universe alternate between these two processes. When you see, hear, smell or taste Nature, you breathe it in. What you see does not pass away without leaving a trace on you. The eye itself perishes, the object perishes, but [the fact] that you have seen something remains. You will understand now that at certain times it can be necessary that an understanding of these things be available. We are going forward to an age when, as I recently indicated, understanding will reach right into the atom. It will be realised - by the popular mind too that the atom is nothing else than congealed electricity. Thought itself is composed of the same substance.
Before the end of our present cultural epoch one will in fact have come so far that people will be able to penetrate into the atom itself. When one is able to grasp the materiality between the thought and the atom, then one will soon be able to understand the penetration of the atom. And then nothing will be inaccessible to certain methods of working. A man standing here, let us say, will be able, by pressing a button concealed in his pocket, to [explode] some object at a great distance, let us say in Hamburg, just as wireless telegraphy is possible, by setting up a wave movement and causing it to take a particular form at some other place. This will be within man's power when the occult truth, that thought and atom consist of the same substance, is applied to practical life.
It is impossible to conceive what might happen in such circumstances if mankind has not by then reached selflessness. Only through the attainment of selflessness will it be possible to preserve mankind from the brink of destruction. The downfall of post-Atlantean culture will be caused by the lack of morality. The Lemurian race was destroyed by fire, the Atlantean by water; ours will be destroyed by the War of All against All, [by?] evil, through the struggle of men with one another. Humanity will destroy itself in mutual strife. And the despairing thing - more desperately tragic than other catastrophes - will be that the blame will lie with human beings themselves.
A tiny handful of men will save themselves and pass over into the sixth epoch. This tiny handful will have developed complete selflessness. The others will make use of every [imaginable] skill and subtlety in the penetration and conquest of the physical forces of Nature, but without attaining the essential degree of selflessness . They will start the War of All against All, and that will be the cause of the destruction of our civilisation.
In the seventh post-Atlantean cultural epoch, to be precise, this War of All against All will break out, in the most terrible way. Great and mighty forces will ensue from discoveries that will turn the entire globe into a kind of self-functioning electrical apparatus. The tiny handful will be protected in a way that cannot be discussed.
Now you will be able to picture more clearly than was possible when I spoke of these things last time, why the Good [and Proper] Form must be sought and in what sense Freemasonry became aware that it must build a building [dedicated to] selfless [ends]. It is easier to survive and pass over into the future, to the tiny handful of new humanity, with the good old forms, than in chaos.
It is easy to jeer at empty forms, but they have however a deep significance. They are adapted to the structure of our [period of] evolution. After all, they are connected with necessary stages in human nature and the development of the human soul. Just think of it: we are living in the fifth period of the fifth great post-Atlantean epoch; 6 we have still to live through two more periods of this great epoch. Then the seven periods of the sixth great epoch will follow and then the seven periods of the seventh great epoch. This makes sixteen stages of evolution in the future. Humanity has still to pass through these sixteen stages. A man who can experience something of the conditions [of existence] that are possible there, is to a certain degree initiated. There is a certain correspondence between the degrees of initiation and the secrets of the epochs still to come.
In the ‘form-state’ of our planet there are seven great epochs and each of these epochs has seven sub-periods (cultural epochs) - forty-nine conditions, therefore, in all. In the next ‘form-state’ of our planet there are again forty-nine conditions. Thus there are definite stages for the investigation of the secrets of future phases of evolution. The higher degrees of Freemasonry had no other aim or purpose, originally, than to be an expression of each one of the future stages of the evolution of humanity. Thus in Freemasonry we actually have something which has been very good, namely, that a man who had attained a certain degree knew how he must work his way into the future, so that he could be a kind of pioneer. He knew, too, that one who had reached a higher degree could accomplish more. This arrangement according to degrees can very well be made, for it corresponds with the facts.
If, therefore, it were again possible to pour a new content, together with a new knowledge, into these forms, much good would accrue. Freemasonry would then be imbued with real spirit once again. But content and form belong to the Whole. The state of affairs today is, as I have said: the degrees are there, but nobody has really worked through them. In spite of this, however, they are not there for nothing. They will be brought to life again in the future.
The fifth cultural epoch is a purely intellectual one, an epoch of egoism. We are now at the high point of egoism. The intellect is egoistical in the highest degree, and it is the hallmark of our time. And so we must make our way upwards through intellect to spirituality, which was once there ...[Gap]
The secret of secrets is this, therefore: the human being must learn how to keep silence about the paths along which his ego unfolds, and to regard his deeds, not his ego, as the criterion. The real heart of the secret lies in his deeds and the overcoming of the ego through action. The ego must remain concealed within the deed. Elimination of the interests of the ego from the on-streaming flow of karma - this belongs to the first degree. Whatever karma the ego incurs is thereby wiped out from karma. Nation, race, sex, position, religion - all these work upon human egoism. Only when mankind has overcome all these things will it be freed from egoism.
You can identify, in the astral body, a particular colour for every nation, every race, every epoch. You will always find a base-colour there, that the person has as a member of one of these classifications or categories. This [specific colour] must be eliminated. The Theosophical Society works to level out the colours of the astral bodies of its adherents. They must be of like colour, like in respect of the base-colour. This base colour gives rise to a certain substance ... [Gap] ... [called kundalini, which holds together, within the human being, the forces which lead eventually to the spirit.] 7
Bringing this levelling-out about will actually entail bloody war, and through such things as economic strife among nations, wars of exploitation, financial and industrial enterprises, conquests, etc., and through the adoption of certain measures, it will be more and more possible to set masses of people in motion and simply to compel them. The individual will acquire more and more power over certain masses of people. For the drift of this development is not that we will become democratic, but that we will become brutally oligarchic, in that the individual will gain more and more power. If the ennobling of morals is not achieved, then the most brutal forces will lead. This will happen, just as catastrophe by water happened to the Atlanteans.
Why is someone born into a certain race? "The soul selects her own society." So, skin color is the result, not the cause, of one's karma. To say that Steiner was a "product of his time" is quite arrogant and ignorant, considering that his scope, width, and breadth encompassed immense epochs of earth's evolutionary cycles. Further, the war of all against all is not spoken of as a racial conflict. Finally, the mixing of races is definitely a part of the plan, since Steiner also said that eventually race and sex will become irrelevant as differentiating traits of humans.
Are you discussing the original German text or do you have an English translation you can provide here?
We are working with various English translations and the original German (a few who can read it for themselves and others of us who use the help of electronic translation software like ChatGPT that provides helpful context about word choices, etc). If you email me I can share the lectures we are discussing with you.
I was in a group that actually tried to show how different punctuation can make a difference as well. It's amazing how somebody's choice of where to place or not place commas can confuse things incredibly.
To the best of my knowledge only one person in the group read it in German. The English translation is problematic as I pointed out to Matt about 3-4 weeks ago!
@@TheExceptionalState
Yeah, I have had three different German speakers translate most sections over the years. It is always fascinating to see what can be lost and gained in translation.
So far nobody has pointed to English words that are changing the core concept the formation of skin color in the context of understanding what the white mission is and the time period it covers.
At 01:10:22 Angus IMO makes the most important point, that is, the most thought-provoking.
If we do perceive a difference between white people and black people, for example if we notice that black people are less subject to our present age "desertification" of the souls than white people, we should investigate it.
Are white people (at least apparently) losing their humanity sooner because they are an evolutionary vanguard that must pass through a "dark night of the soul" before being regenerated and thus regenerate all other peoples? Or are they (we) inherently bad, the ideas regarding racial "roles", Steiner's included, just a product of the white man's sickness?
Lorenzo
Stop forcing skin-colorism as a model of thiking. Homo spaiens vary in personality within their phenotypes there isnt such a corralation where you can say this color does x or this color does y and if you are to take yourself serious as a sceitific thinking person you should reject the entire use of race as a model of ourselves on this planet. Each time any of us defult back to "Well if we see black and white...." or even accept that there is a black or white people we have failed to think scientiicly about ourselves. We have to change our culture the best way is to hold oursleves to a standard in language that maps on to our standard of science.
And to adress your point directly the study of the phenomena is adressing this issue why do we claim science yet keep defulting to race based models of self and others? We keep fucking this point up over and over.
Lorenzo, are you merely hypothetically offering those two options about white people, or are you considering them to be the most justifiable options to choose from? Thanks! Interesting comment.
@@rooruffneck No, I don't think those are the only options. Not even the more justifiable; I think those are just racist options that people can't deny a priori. A way to protect philosophical thought and discussion from the politically-correct censor.
@@lucassiccardi8764
Ah, thanks for clarified. Agreed.
Ashton and I discussed some relevant themes during a walk this afternoon: ruclips.net/video/KN9z7MMJ008/видео.html
@18:35 Toward perfection, Ashton: The living symbol for this is The Christ. In all developmental process there is progression and regression as sort of laws within the overall developmental process of the organism. I would suggest this is consistent with Steiner's Goethean approach.
Why is the 5th more Christ-like than the 6th? -Ashton
@@urphanomen why does my child gain in a developmental ability and regress before learching forward again? the move into the christ is developmental as we see with freedom in POF. polarities are key to that development
@@jeffbarney3584 That makes sense, but what I meant was what makes the 6th more Christ-inclined than the 5th?
@@micr0k0sm good question. What made post enlightenment thinking so allergic to the spiritual? I'm guessing something like that. Freedom depended on it. She moves in mysterious ways. I was disputing the notion of the way it was being spoken of as if it were a value judgment rather than a polaric necessity.
@@urphanomen
As long as the so-called 'decent' phases can be shown to be advances in development, I have no problem. Steiner does this with regard to the emergence of materialism. Wait, is that a decent phrase? :)
That said, I think we can all easily think of better descriptors than 'decent' that more accurately describe a healthy and necessary step forward in development.
Happy to have stumbled upon this channel
Won’t we all be born in all races if we live hundreds of times….
Yes, and Rudolph Steiner also said that. He also said that native Americans were a more advanced soul group. He also said that many European people would eventually incarnate as native Americans if they were able to grow to that level of consciousness.
It’s true, but many people will. Especially those who feel instinctual superiority to other races.
@@reysawareness and those who are humble as well
One of the strangest types of dreams that I often have is walking next to a row of very tall people.I am talking of people as tall as street lamps; say 30 feet.They stand very silently and seem to communicate with me telepathically; telling me not to be afraid.Again strangely as I walk pass them and look up at their faces ; all of them would appear to be giant slim white blonds dressed in robes; but occasionally I would spot an oriental amongst them.Have never seen a black person amongst these strange Silent Tall Beings , however.
Unfortunately there are many racist passages in Steiner's book, the only fact of calling Asian "yellow" is a strong language prejudice, completely false. In other books he talks about "a pure blood German": racism is present. But, it is easy to understand that he was an illuminate, but also a human being, so , let's say, a 60% of what he writes is true spiritual elevation, but the other 40% is just... based on a human being of the 20th century: so he is embedded with a racist culture, he knows nothing about domestic animals and their spirit, just because at that time African people and animals were radically considered as inferior, low-grade beings.
But it is quite easy to detect those crap passages in his books, and keep just the right and beautiful teachings.
@47:30 a correction. The differentiation began toward the end of the Atlantean according to Steiner.
Is a really big problem that Steiner was thinking about the black race like that
Means that we can’t listen much his works
the truth is harsh
1:02:15 The value is the result of the polarity not a judgement that ascent is better than descent except in fulfillment. The left pedal or the right pedal rising and falling are in no ways value judgement but the direction the organism is pedaling in toward destination is a pretty good definition of what value is.
As a therapist this makes me think of the concept of 'regression in service of the ego.'
Of course not ego in our Anthroposophical sense.
Steiner often quotes a few sentences of a philosopher and rather than address the content, he will ask his listeners to notice the reasoning, asking if we can detect any jumps in logic or question begging; a helpful exercise when examining the entire structure and content of an empirical-rational argument.
When Steiner states in this lecture:
"How could one fail to be struck by the profound difference in spiritual culture between, let us say, the peoples of Europe and Asia! How indeed could one not be struck by the differences connected with the colour of the skin?"
Later in the lecture he seems to draw a more direct casual line between what causes the skin to become white and how that allows certain human capacities to unfold.
But here, earlier in the lecture, he uses the word 'connection' (I'd love a few different translations). A connection does not imply a causal direction. Somebody could notice that the black children in a certain school are doing much better academically than the white children and say, "Do you notice the connection between skin color and academic achievement?" It may sound like they are implying that black people are more inclined to succeed, but they haven't really said it.
IF they later say, "Black skin is formed because of ABC, and ABC is what generates the impulse and ability to really do well in school." THEN they would be talking about a more causal and innate relationship between skin color and intelligence. But until that point, they might as easily say, "Now, the children's skin color is nothing to do with the factors resulting in their better scores."
So, while I don't think Steiner is making a logical mistake in the above passage, I do notice my intuition perk up that he goes from looking at how two cultures are different, straight to the obvious fact that they have different color skin. I'm sure they have different average height and weight as well, and bone density. But just as their height differences could be a downstream effect of factors having nothing to do with the core cultural differences, so might their skin.
But Steiner does make clear, soon, that skin is not a downstream factor in the most significant issue of our time.
He clearly took time to study skin, to carefully observe how skin develops and what is actually taking place in the coloring. For those of us who know he is always stating what he believes to be true, I think we all believe he felt certain that he was observing a very specific and significant process.
For the sake of discussion, let's say he was not correct, not correct in what he was seeing and not correct in how he was interpreting it. The obvious question then is to become curious about the complexity of the process of Steiner observing skin color development, all that went into that. And all that went into how those factors influence the arising of Imaginations and Inspirations via Steiner's individuality. And, then, as he states in many lectures, there is a very complex process of interpreting an objective Imagination. Anthroposophists should have a robust understanding of dozens of factors that influence that process, too. And all the ways small 'errors' can have large consequences. It's complex!
But I know that it won't be non-Anthroposophists who will be able to deeply penetrate these processes. It won't be non-Anthroposophists who develop a more complicated understanding of how Steiner's clairvoyant processes developed, especially in regards to understandable aspects that went unnoticed in that development.
But that's all way down the road. First, the question is what % of Anthroposophist even believe that he was making more errors (not total errors, not stupid errors, not hateful errors) than is typically assumed in the movement/ I'd say it is about .01%.
Maybe 4% will say, "Look, he was a man of his times, but he was still light years ahead of us."
A question or set of questions that have arisen for me in and around this conversation is : Is he talking out of and about ontological dimensions or is he making value claims? Secondly but not secondarily, are we/I making value judgments about ontological claims and or discoveries? Also in light of the context of the set of twelve lectures he refers his audience to, what is the role of individuation within various "evolutionary" cultural heritages in confluence with "...the five centres where the planetary forces are concentrated and are manifested in the external world."? MoFS lecture 6 What role does group identity play in relation to the Christ Impulse?
I'm a bit of a broken record when it comes to stating my opinion that I don't read the relevant (to me) parts of 174b as being value statements in an ultimate sense. Maybe in a short term sense, like the way you will value a hammer much more than a video game if you are desperately needing to get a house built. But that's provisional, and that's how I read his emphasis on the urgency and necessity of white people achieving their mission.
Second, I do think many value statements are being at least felt (if not made explicit) as people grapple with much of Steiner’s work.
For instance, his statement about the attractiveness of Schubert's face can easily be taken as an asthetic value judgment shaped by his own subjective notions and preferences, or as a simple truth about what is more attractive than what.
Finally, I'd need to get to my personal Steiner library to review the other lectures, but I do feel he was helpfully specific in showing detailed reasons why there can be sharp distinctions between what one group is capable of versus another, at least provisionally.
@@rooruffneck I am not sure of sharp distinctions but in MoFS he mentions the influence of five planets and the moon on regions of the earth and peoples after the Atlantean diaspora as well as the full hosts of the Hierarchy influences. It is not clear to me how one could begin to be clear about physiologic distinctions he made in one or two lectures. And the beginning has yet to begin for me on this subject. In order to accept an understanding of roles by peoples in the evolutionary workings of an intelligent universe I need to know why and how the existential instantiations work in order to get to what he means by "Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character." The Universal Human: The Evolution of Individuality 1909
@@jeffbarney3584
Well, where I agree is that we could connect any aspect of 174b with any aspect of any other lecture cycle and we would have deeply fruitfull things to consider.
I am very limited, obviously, and in this context my scope is on just one specific kind of question. I hope others will come in and have wisdom regarding other kinds of connections.
I do think Steiner was clear enough regarding at least a few distinctions that he was making, here. This doesn't contradict the notion that we could understand what other beliefs and schemas he had that help unfold these. Not at all! And I imagine, in the future, others might drop in who can dip this lecture into all kinds of interesting other aspects of the cosmology.
Regarding that great quote you shared, Jeff:
"Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement, which is to prepare the sixth period, must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people. The old point of view of race has physical character, but what will prevail in the future will have a more spiritual character."
I personally don't see any contradiction between that statement and what he says about the formation of non-white skin and its implications in 174b.
I fully grasp why some people might project notions onto each text (not you, just people who aren't deeply informed by the work) that imply contradiction. But one of the reasons I find 174B so helpful is because it shows how they fit together. At least to me. And maybe 7 others :)
The way that modern culture talks about race, hatred, difference would make it very easy for people to assume that Steiner's reasons for stating the exclusive mission of white people imply a form of modern racism with all of its assumptions. But that is nonesense. It might have aspects of truth, sure. But Steiner could easily explain why white skin forms, why it helps understand the essential role of white people over the next 2000 plus years, and why we must still unite all people as this mission is attempted to be accomplished.
I think any correspondences with skin color and progressive and regressive behaviors may be largely incidental and serve as ramifications of the behavioral choices , living conditions and evolutionary impulses that the ancestors within a given racial subculture were most susceptible to as consequences of their unique karma and the strengths and weaknesses it afforded them and their offspring. The karma of misfortune in the form of subjugation and behavioral regression need not entail punishment for ill deeds, but instead may be the manifestations of ill fate as a consequence of encountering our more selfish and technologically advanced human brethren who still had- and to an extent- have to overcome the bias of viewing mankind in terms of the "like" and the more dislikable "other". The latter being found socially and instinctually repulsive or inferior. Life is mounted on inequalities and as a simple rule the oldest forms are the most highly equipped for a prior age where they saw their zenith, yet if there be any failiure to assimilate the innovative impulses of a new epoch then there would be a "falling off" as the line of seperation between the older and newer race would deepen if the former's members by majority fail to adadpt harmoniously with the changing times and find themselves undermined and ill equipped to brave the unique criteria of a "new world". This befalls and has befallen many of the older races on our globe. Bare in mind though that many individuals today in the "advanced" races once existed in older racial forms with the limited perceptional abilities of that age. The members who still occupy them now are simply those not yet ripe to prigress, they are not the be all end all of racial capacity. It truly is an individual matter how fast or delayed racial evolution is, the genetics once they haven't lead to any form of pf retardation are secondary. Often times all an individual really needs is a catalyst to incite character growth, hence where limitations are encountered by those left behind, those now ahead can reassimilate them and give them an adequate place in society, imparting undiscovered knowledge, immune resistances and all traits, mental and physical which are appropriate for the age, though a principle of admixture. Hence no sheaf is left behind, aome simply have to be plucked from decadence of the stunted minority "resown"- (reborn, physically moved, through time and space) -and nourished through the substances of bodily and mental vitality afforded by their progressed kin. Decadence is no consequence of race in itself if you ascribe to this or a similar view, rather individual shortcomings stacked together spanning generations
In the lecture series The Mission of the Folk Souls Steiner describes the reincarnations of individuals in and out of multiple races and genders. What role would this play in relation to the general realities of race?
@Mark Smith Oh yes by all means. How could I be so foolish. Please do falsify the claims and the claims 3000 years of interior sciences describing reincarnation. I am sure it all reducible to epiphenomena as human conscious.
@@MarkSmith-yx5oz I can see why you might characterize reincarnation in this crude way, but I assure you there are not any such gross dualisms in Steiner's cosmology or anthropology. He would certainly agree that humanity grows out of the cosmos, like fruit from the world-tree. It's just that we are layered and textured beings, again, like fruit, that have rind, meat, and seed, etc.
It's a great question. I feel compelled to answer it in the context of the lectures being discussed.
I'd say that I personally would like to think that each and every difference an individual experiences while alive "crosses" (cross fertilizes, so to speak) the summation of all previous experiences and generates a new whole. This new whole (in my imaginative context right now) would exist prior to conception and while many factors would shape its expression in significant ways, the color of the skin would not change the whole with regards to its capacity to partake in the cutting edge of the consciousness soul Era.
Culture, family, siblings, mom's coffee, etc, would all play roles in the the whole's individuation. I'd include skin color but within the social-psyco domain, such as last name, attractiveness, height.
Steiner talked about how increasingly souls will be making last minute adjustments to who they incarnate through. Regarding your question, I can't imagine a sudden change in the skin color into which a soul incarnated to have the effect that Steiner says it does in the lectures. And I don't believe that there is any reason to conceptualize the pre-conception whole as a race of any kind.
But I absolutely think we have reason to suspect that the soul is 'aware' of how (to a limited pre-flash extent) the body and social context will affect it.
The pre-conception bright complexity is 100% independent of those constraints. I'd say.
@@MarkSmith-yx5oz In your view, what does "psyche" in the discipline of psychology refer to?
@Mark Smith What might you mean by mind or by consciousness. Do you distinguish between spirit and mind? Or do all of the phenomena collapse into brain function?
@57:28 Chad please explain what you mean by Steiner just being a product of his time coming down out darwin evo. And are you saying he was saying a people of his time are superior to other people of his time? If so please support this. Are you also just such a product? @59:00 yes you are reading that wrong. And so that which follows immediately.
I would love to read at least four different translations by German speakers of the following passage. Ten years ago, I worked with a few other Anthroposophists who spoke German (one was a native German speaker), and we tried to translate it in very literal and non-literal ways, to get a sense of the full scope and range of readings that could go into it. I wish I had saved all of our conversations, but I might be able to get some of those translations from them. The following is the one from the English text. I also try to see as many examples of punctuation that can change the connotations or explicit meaning. I would love if anybody shares insights in regard to translations and punctuation and the slight yet significant shifts they make.
"When we quite recognize this, then we shall
also be clear that where the spirit has still to work as spirit,
where in a certain way it has to stay behind in its development --
because in our time it should descend into the flesh -- where it
stays behind, takes a demonic character and does not completely
permeate the flesh, there the white skin does not appear.
Atavistic forces are present which do not let the spirit come into
complete harmony with the flesh."
I'm wondering if Matt or anybody in the group has a link to the German text in a format that can be copied?
In terms of connotations and meanings, I have several questions. My first is how many other ways might the phrase "which do not let the spirit..." be translated? Do any of those ways take the agency from the Atavistic forces?
The German for this passage is: "Wenn wir dies ganz erkennen, dann werden wir uns auch klar sein darüber, daß da, wo der Geist noch als Geist wirken soll, wo er in gewisser Weise zurückbleiben soll in seiner Entwickelung - weil er in unserer Zeit die Aufgabe hat, ins Fleisch hinunterzusteigen -, daß da, wo er zurückbleibt, wo er einen dämonischen Charakter annimmt, das Fleisch nicht vollständig durchdringt, daß da weiße Hautfärbung nicht auftritt, weil atavistische Kräfte da sind, die den Geist nicht vollständig mit dem Fleisch in Einklang kommen lassen."
Chat-GPT4 translation (I asked it to translate as literally as possible): "If we fully recognize this, then we will also be clear about the fact that where the spirit is still to act as spirit, where it is to remain in a certain way in its development - because in our time it has the task of descending into the flesh - that where it remains, where it assumes a demonic character, does not fully penetrate the flesh, that there white skin color does not occur, because atavistic forces are there that do not completely harmonize the spirit with the flesh."
@@urphanomen
That actually is interesting! I'll be back :)
@@urphanomen
My friend is digging through his old files to see if he has the different translations he came up with ten years ago. In the meantime, I asked ChatG to translate it in three legit ways. I won't clog up more space sharing them, but the difference are interesting yet none change the fundamental takeaways as I can see it. The one you got is unique in the degree to which it takes the agency away from the atavistic forces. They still have agency but it is less specific about the 'harmonization'.
Big picture, none so far suggest that he is suggesting anything other than the idea that non-white skin appears where there is this specific inability (due to these demonic/atavistic forces) of the spirit (The Christ, in this context) to penetrate the flesh. Accordingly, white skin is the representation of this process of The Christ not being deflected. Matt, could you easily email me the entire lecture in German?
@19:50 Ashton, Unless you see these lectures a departure how would you define Steiner's us of the term race? Was he using in the way people of his time were commonly using it? Also he overall does not generalize about the west to include North America in the case of races. In fact he identifies North America with Native Americans during the diaspora out of the Atlantean endings. And the place where the death forces play the major role.
Thanks for this comment, Jeff. I’ll respond to the second part first. Steiner did regularly refer to the west as the “English-American” or “Anglo-American” world. Here’s one example: “But in the western world, everything originating in ancient times is destined to become platitude. Yes, in the west, in the Anglo-American world, all human tradition will become platitude.”
rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA196/English/SCR2011/19200220p01.html
You can find more examples by searching “Anglo-American” on rsarchive. I’ll follow-up on the question about race in response to your request to clarify the meaning of essentializing.
- Ashton
For me, in the context of grappling with this lecture, race is a red hearing.
This lecture asks us to try to comprehend the process of the current manifestation of skin color and how it relates to what is taking place between the developing individual and the Christ.
I think we should discuss this conversation primarily in these terms because Steiner chose to name them in detail and then to connect that process with why white people have an exclusive mission.
This connection that he makes is what is so helpful and unique about the lecture.
And I'm obviously only talking about one particular focus that this lecture can ask for. I fully get why it opens the door to nearly every other lecture he gave! Can't avoid that. Thank Heavens.
@45:00 I would suggest it is not to transcend but to die into and resurrect following the lead of the Christ's sacrifice for all of humanity one individual at a time through the process of individuation.
I think you've worded this better, yes. Transcend is a tricky word, but my intent in using it was to suggest a going into, through, and out the other side, rather than an escape from death.
Chad I agree that the Astro world view is vitally important in letting us know some tendencies coming out of the spiritual world but tells us very little on its own where the Christ lives now and what the relation of the individual spirit is existentially to the various souls and spiritual forms or the role of thinking in the evolution of consciousness toward a freedom that is participatory via the 7 life processes. The latter for example, being profoundly tied to the 7 planets. (I suspect more planets will be discovered along with Pluto and which we will find corresponds with other members of our being ). What does Astrology as you practice it as a science, tell us about the evolutionary phases of the earth starting with old Saturn. What does it tell us about the Hyperborean, Lemurian and Atlantean as stages of the current earth evolution and how human beings and other kingdoms of nature instantiate? Does it help us understand how Karma and reincarnation work? Does the science you practice have a self reflective aspect that can tell us what it's circumscribed role is within these complexes of evolutionary processes ? Can you know what was implicit in Steiner's thoughts on the issues above and at hand or verify or falsify his findings in these areas? If so I would love to hear about it all as it would surely elevate the conversation. If not what are the explanatory mechanisms for the conclusions you shared here?
Aloha Jeff,
I appreciate your comment and questions. Yes, I didn't articulate my perspective well in my comments. Yes, I agree, the 7-life processes are essentially references to the 7 visible planets, Sun and Moon out through Saturn. What is new about the astrological perspective today, relative to its origins and development up through the Copernican and scientific revolutions, is the evolution of consciousness (outlined in Steiner's "Riddles of Philosophy") in regard to the differentiation of the modern self (which simultaneously disenchanted the cosmos),... and critically the discovery of the outer planets, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. It is the combination of these facts which lay the groundwork for the possibility for a reunification (coniunctio/sacred marriage) of the alienated modern identity (which largely sees itself as separate from a disenchanted cosmos) with the divine mind (spirit world).
I don't know if there is anything that can tell us "where the Christ lives now" in relation to individuals or cultures specifically, (that seems to be relative to each individual and culture). What I am actually suggesting is the archetypal astrological reality, discipline, or methodology (emerging in the last 25 years of the of the 20th century and given its clearest articulation in Richard Tarnas' "Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View") *IS* an instantiation of the Christ principle itself. It is a demonstration of the divine or ontic Logos 'made flesh', ie. the archetypes are living beings mysteriously connected to the planets themselves which function as living symbols mediating the relationship between the individual soul and the divine mind.
No, the astrological perspective doesn't tell us anything per se about the Lemurian or Atlantean ages. If we had an accurate understanding of the dates of these cultures, we could look at the outer planet positions to gain insight, but without good dates we are in the dark.
No, it doesn't tell us "how" karma and reincarnation work, but I do think the natal chart is a reflection of one's karma and can provide prospective insight into one's reincarnational relationship with the archetypes.
You asked, "Does the science you practice have a self reflective aspect that can tell us what it's circumscribed role is within these complexes of evolutionary processes ?"
The astrological perspective does not have a self-reflective aspect within it per se, but it provides the possibility (and is essentially required) for human beings to engage in a self-reflective practice to deepen one's relationship between one's soul/psyche and the archetypal Gods and Goddesses. And it is primarily 'thinking' (in Steiner's sense of it) which is required to engage with the archetypes and provides the possibility through self-reflection to cultivate a more co-creative participation with them and simultaneously be less possessed by them. The planetary archetypes (as living symbols) essentially function as the Logos, both in the Heraclitan sense of a cosmic ordering principle and in the Christian sense as the Word (or language) of God.
No, the astrological perspective does not provide granular detailed insight into Steiner's or anyone's thoughts in a manner as to 'verify or falsify' one's ideas. Astrology is archetypally predictive or clarifying, but it does not provide predictive insight into concrete particulars. It can at times be clarifying of concrete details in retrospect, but not prior to one's exoteric co-creative manifestation with the archetypes.
Just a couple of initial reflections. We would really need a full Zoom meeting to do justice to and flesh out these ideas thoroughly. I appreciate your probing questions and the opportunity to shed more light on these ideas.
Mahalo,
Chad
@@ArchetypalView
Hi Chad. I really appreciated your opening comments. I can't really comment on your astrology comments because I don't know enough there.
This might be a nerdy point, but I figure you could appreciate it possibly.
I hear what you are saying about the end of PoF contradicting what he says about the causes and effects of skin color in relation to 'racial' missions.
But, just to point out. They do not really contradict each other in my opinion.
To be sure, I think Steiner is wrong about non-white people not integrateing with the so-called white mission.
So, I'm not evaluating him in terms of what is write or wrong in his comments.
I'm just wanting to point out that he can hold the view that *ultimately* we are all the same as true individuals AND YET we are in a period of time in which skin color is the manifestation of a process that points to why for the next 2000 years there is a mission that only white people can accomplish and that will require non-white people to be 'held back' in development until then.
While I see no logical contradiction in what Steiner is saying, I do understand why it could and maybe should be taken to simply that he thinks there is a supieror race.
But the reason why I don't think we can say that is becaues his long-term view is that the essential mission of white people will end and there will be an essential role for non-white people much later. Also, while I cringe typing this, we must admit that even during this time in which Steiner says non-white people are not capable of integarting fully with The Christ Impulse, he technically still could be interpreted as saying that non-white people being 'held back' from development IS just as important as white people currently being the only one's capable of fully integrating (or integrating enough) with the Christ.
Much of this makes me feel uncomfortable typing. My experience is very different than Steiner's in this context. I'm of course not talking about clairvoyance impressions of how skin color forms and why non-white skin is a blocking of The Chirst. I'm talking about my experience and observation of people I know and in the word who are working deeply with the kind of transformations that I see as the leading edge of evolution. This, along with my understandings of what a human being is the moment before conception. And many other things. I think he's simply wrong in this important slice of his research. But I think he gives us an opportunity to pause and think from new directions about his obvious genius and good-will, and how those interface with all the variables of clairvoyant development. I don't know if you are an Anthroposophist, but I hope so. In the last ten years, I see more and more indications that there can be a new and, in my opinion, more complex and deep image of Steiner himself and his work.
Anyway, I much appreciated your opening comments.
@@ArchetypalView Thank you for your thoughtful answers. You say above "I don't know if there is anything that can tell us "where the Christ lives now" in relation to individuals or cultures specifically, (that seems to be relative to each individual and culture). What I am actually suggesting is the archetypal astrological reality, discipline, or methodology (emerging in the last 25 years of the of the 20th century and given its clearest articulation in Richard Tarnas' "Cosmos and Psyche: Intimations of a New World View") IS an instantiation of the Christ principle itself. It is a demonstration of the divine or ontic Logos 'made flesh', ie. the archetypes are living beings mysteriously connected to the planets themselves which function as living symbols mediating the relationship between the individual soul and the divine mind."
I am working with a theory that I believe was a spiritual scientific discovery made by Rudolf Steiner over time and confirmed as a witnessing the mystery of Golgotha in his 40th year. That is that the Christ is living in the etheric and as such in the seven fold sheath of the life processes in every single individual and in simultaneity in the etheric world of all at onceness. It is not a relative existence based on belief just as humanity's existence isn't relative to a particular point of view. If this is true and I believe there is epistemological support for it, this consciousness is very near to us as individual personalities. This proximity would mean locating the Christ in the world will be ever more possible the deeper we embody/incarnate the spiritual activity as a conscious ongoing deed. The closer we come to this intimacy as individuals the more it is universally available. For me this is theory with some momentary flashes that seem to confirm this locating.
I would love some clarity as to what you might mean Christ "principle" and the "logos 'made flesh' "
I will reiterate the point I made in the video that Steiner himself talks about his disappointment in how his remarks from the 1st lecture were not understood as he intended. As this conversation reveals, even more people failed to understand.
Ich kann mir leicht vorstellen, daß gerade aus all dem, was gestern gesagt worden ist im Anschluß an andere Bemerkungen, jemand erst recht ein Werturteil fällt unter dem Eindruck von allerlei Emotionen und Gefühlen. Und so kann es sich erfüllen, worauf ich ja aufmerksam machte, daß dasjenige, was insbe sondere in bezug auf diese Dinge an einem Orte gesprochen wird, an anderen Orten mißverstanden werden muß
(Feb 14 1915)
I think it is also possible for someone to hear, assess, and reject his claims as incorrect without this rejection being a result of some sort of unthoughtful emotional reaction.
@@Footnotes2Plato This is true. It is also possible to do so with out using the label racist unless there is certainty that it is valid. And I would say if you do use the term it is incumbent on you (one) to define your use of the term and then why you believe your use is valid.
Why do you reject this claim from the beginning of first lecture as incorrect? Was it the feeling of abhorrence that you referenced in the conversation?
This must be clear to us: If we stand on pure anthroposophical ground, if we develop the high truths for our soul which touch the highest being of the human being, then we stand on a ground which is beyond all nationality, even beyond all racial differences. If we stand on the ground of what we can gain about the human being from spiritual knowledge, then the same truths apply to the whole world, and within certain horizons to other planets of our planetary system: as soon as we stand on this ground, as soon as the highest thoughts concerning the human being come into consideration for us.
Das muß uns klar sein: Wenn wir auf rein anthroposophischem Boden stehen, wenn wir die hohen Wahrheiten entwickeln für unsere
Seele, welche des Menschen höchstes Wesen berühren, dann stehen wir auf einem Boden, der jenseits ist aller Nationalität, ja jenseits aller Rassenunterschiede sogar. Stehen wir recht auf dem Boden desjenigen, was wir über des Menschen Wesen aus der spirituellen Erkenntnis gewinnen können, dann gelten dieselben Wahrheiten über den ganzen Erdkreis hin, ja innerhalb gewisser Horizonte für andere Planeten unseres Planetensystems: sobald wir auf diesem Boden stehen, sobald für uns in Betracht kommen die höchsten, das menschliche Wesen betreffende Gedanken
@@TheExceptionalState I hope it is clear that I am not rejecting that claim! It’s that very statement, and many others like it, that make it impossible for me to call Steiner a racist. He is not a racist. But this is different from referring to particular other statements as racist statements, in that they essentialize qualities that need not be so. My intent in what I said in this conversation was to say that particular claims may be false, not all claims. The claims I think are false have to do with essentialist statements about skin color and the Christ impulse. I just see too much conflicting evidence to accept that particular claim as true.
@@Footnotes2Plato
Well put. Like most people in this discussion, I do not find reason to think of Steiner as racist. For me that term is best used to describe forms of racial antipathy.
But I would be shocked if any of us couldn't understand why a smart, reasonable modern person wouldn't easily understand many of Steiner's claims as being racist in the regular sense, indicating that he felt there was something superior or more evolved about white people. In the short term, he does. But not in the long term.
Like Matt, I treasure this conversation because it addresses a topic that I think will become more and more essential for coming stream(s) (Personally, I'd love for there to be one solid stream with beautiful little offshoots!) of Anthroposophy.
If somebody said that the reason non-blue colored eyes form is because there is a rejection in some children of the primary evolutionary impulse of our time, that those children are just as human and vauable as any of God's creatures, but that, for a time, they will not be able to engage in, say, the true mission of this school community. However, if the blue eyed children succeed in their mission (which might take another 8 years), THEN the blue eyed children will be able to fructify the experience of the non-blues, which will initiate a whole new epoch on the school .... If this was said, and it came from somebody who clearly cared about all children, we could avoid the conversation about hatred and dark bigotry.
However, we could also enthusiastically notice if we agree. We could do this in many different ways. We could first look and see if we have any reason to think that eye color is playing a significant role in how the kids interact and how they shape the school's fundamental reality. If we notice that non-blues demonstrate over and over again the exact same capacities as blues, that would be just one bit of data that suggests our friend is making an error in observation and/or reasoning. But we can imagine many others that could accumulate and lead us to state that we do not believe that non-blue eyes indicate a rejection of any core capacities.
Another thing, just because a teacher believes in her heart that all of the students are capable of great achievements, this doesn't mean that we would not find biases, errors, and confusions in how she understands the nature of children, childhood, body size, talent development, etc..
I agree that it couldn't be clearer that Steiner holds a cosmic view in which all humans ultimately are expressions of the same living archetype.
I do not find that fact to contradict Steiner's belief that the process of skin color formation is a manifestation of the fact that non-white people can't integrate with the Christ Impulse, or, in other words, that non-white people can't integrate with the Christ Impulse to a sufficient degree that allows them to equally contribute to white humanity's mission.
Some of us in the movement (most?) are more than willing to say, "Look, Steiner was a person of his times, so there are ways that he unconsciously absorbed assumptions that would have biased him in various ways."
The interesting and important issue (as I see it) is our learning to understand the development of higher perception in a way that includes the subtle ways that all kinds of understandable blind-spots, biases, experiences, personal strengths and weaknesses, etc, can have small but significant impacts on the 'instruments' of higher knowing.
From there, it won't seem strange that Steiner could, in some contexts, have what he is experiencing as objective observations (seeing the way non-white skin can't fully incorporate The Christ and how that actually generates the color itself, etc.,.) that are actually inaccurate and lead to inaccurate imaginations, interpretations, and understandings.
I've been slowly finding and discoursing with fellow Anthroposophist who find this conversation regarding development really interesting and important. Sure, it will be a subsection because it is very specific to those who are active on the path and interested in methodology/research and who feel there is reason to believe that Steiner's clairvoyance wasn't as exact as it is often spoken of.
But, probably good to keep stressing that the value of these lectures to me are not that they indicate Steiner was hateful towards non-white people. For me, they don't indicate that.
The future is mixed.
You are mixxy🎉
Matt can you give the source for Lucifer and Ahriman's influence?
THE UNIVERSAL HUMAN
Various GAs
4. The Unification of Humanity through the Christ Impulse
9 January 1916, Bern
“Lucifer and Ahriman opposed this; they did not want it to happen that way. They fought against this harmonious tendency of development in the evolution of humanity. ... Instead of the intended consecutive development of races, there was a coexistence of races. That is how it came about that physically different races inhabited the earth and are still there in our time although evolution should really have proceeded as I have described it.”
@@Footnotes2Plato Seems they are still at work
@@jeffbarney3584 Absolutely. We see them at work in the ways that some try to rise above the fray of racial discord by rushing to a colorblind abstract universalism that denies the very concrete historical traumas reverberating through physical and etheric bodies, while others rush headlong into ressentiment-fueled reductive essentialization seeking segregation, revenge, or a simple reversal of historically racialized social power hierarchies rather than reconciliation and healing. This latter form of essentialization happens both with Whites who insist on the inferiority of Blacks, and with Blacks who insist that Europe is the root of all evil in world history. How to overcome these Luciferic and Ahrimanic temptations? Me thinks it has something to do with Christic forgiveness.
@@Footnotes2Plato
Yeah, this is perfectly in line with exactly why Steiner MIGHT have been inclined to overinterpret some experiences. And I'm including the more subtle kind of interpretation that takes place within Imaginations and Inspirations.
He already had a prior that framed the issue as how development was suppose to allow each race to do its thing, one at a time. No race war!
But, if evil forces caused all races to develop basically at once, it makes sense that certain experiences of "progress" would be filtered via that lens. A highly specific and important mission that requires only white people and is for the sake of humanity is perfectly consistent with that experiential frame.
I don't know but it is very embarrassing to me that in astral type dreams that I frequently have ; I encounter White People more than others.This is especially strange since as a Brown Person I grew up under Apartheid.The Truth appears to be that the Astral Plane is segregated into different Racial Groups.Now it might be that since I am now living in Canada which is predominantly White that this social reality should be reflected in my dreams; but I don't think so for most of my dreams are about flying over fantastic futuristic cities.
@22:50 Everything changed evolutionarily speaking during/after Golgotha . As far as before that as relates to the different peoples drawn and connected to the differential energies around the globe I would refer you to Occult Science and all of the related lectures on cosmic evolution and the ontological realms and spiritual hierarchies populating them including the human traverse through these millions of years.
I agree.
I'm assuming that you don't believe anything in that lecture conflicts with those general statements. To be clear, I do not think that the specific comments in this lecture conflict with any general Cosmological description Steiner has given.
They only seem at first to contradict his claim that race is on the decline as a factor in evolution.
Part of why I am so grateful for this lecture (despite not sharing some of his claims) is that it makes clear some things that seemed ambiguous before.
The ascent/decent conversion can explain why something can be declining yet still highly significant.
@@rooruffneck yes
Could you please tell me what "Urphanomen" means to you?
primal phenomenon or archetypal appearance
Thanks. Can you give me an example?@@urphanomen
@46:00 Before I agree or disagree with its use please define what is meant by the word "essentializing" . This is a loaded word in ideologic circles and I would like our language to be A. shared and B. transcendent of abstractly drawn conclusions.
We can speak in very general terms about skin color: black, brown, red, yellow, white, etc. To my mind, "essentializing" occurs when someone says that skin, hair, or eye color reliably determines other aspects, behavioral traits, or intellectual capacities of individual members of a particular group. This becomes especially silly, in my opinion, when we consider the extent to which nowadays (and especially in diverse societies like the US), we are all hybrids to varying degrees (I used the term "muts" in the video). If there ever was any utility to these ways of thinking in the past is a question we might want to ask, but it seems clear that nowadays it is very quickly becoming an irrelevant oversimplification.
@@Footnotes2Plato So your claim is that Steiner is saying the skin color is a causative or determining factor as opposed to a descriptive reality a people overtime. Based on the whole of Steiner's work the latter is my reading particularly but not exclusively as relates to Mission of Folk Souls. Maybe he is saying that like with vitamin D skin color is an important determining factor. It's not the way I am reading it at the moment.
@@jeffbarney3584 No it seems Steiner often reads skin coloration as an *effect* of spiritual forces, rather than a cause in and of itself. Seems to me he speaks of skin color as an indicator of what spiritual forces have been at work on a people, thus shaping their tendencies and capacities. I think we can and should be very attentive in this area to the ways in which all of us, including Steiner, are subject to certain cultural biases. Being subject to such biases does not mean he or we are racist, it means we interpret experience in light of the habit bodies out of which we've grown, whether it be sensible or supersensible experience.
For me (and to reiterate), both my physical sensation of skin color and moral perception of the motives of others leads me to view, eg, the deed of the Emanuel AME church survivors, who forgave Dylan Roof after he murdered their family members in an attempt to spark a race war, as an especially powerful example of the Christ impulse. Steiner says in 174b (Feb 13, 1915) that "it must be
our task to acquaint ourselves with those cultural impulses which
show a tendency to introduce the spirit into the flesh, to introduce
the spirit into everyday life." To my mind, bringing this level of forgiveness into a courtroom and the affairs of the justice system in response to the racially motivated execution of Black churchgoers during a Bible study is a great example of the cultural impulses we would want to look for.
@@Footnotes2Plato "To my mind, "essentializing" occurs when someone says that skin, hair, or eye color reliably determines other aspects, behavioral traits, or intellectual capacities of individual members of a particular group." I am trying then to understand why you refer to Steiner's description as essentialist. Is it not in this case a word that would be applied synonymously with racist?
As Steiner said, as a karmic mediation for one's own sin of racism, he may incarnate into a race he was disparaging or discriminating towards in a subsequent incarnation. Race is not bound to evolution of a single soul over multiple incarnations.
You must research more in order to understand the subject!
Can you provide citations for these references? I think we all recognize that Steiner was complex on this issue. He said much that contradicts his racist statements, but that doesn't diminish the fact that he said some unambiguously racist things. The point is how to bring anthroposophy forward without perpetuating racist ideas, which, unfortunately, some people are doing.
@@urphanomen sure, can you state who is actually doing that? The claims in this video were incorrect quotes, so those people would simply need to not be confused as well.
Matt @44:09 you characterize the evolution of consciousness as toward whiteness. What do you mean by this term? And where are you finding this being expressed as some ultimate outcome?
A few quotes that led me to use that particular phrase:
'Knowledge of Higher Worlds,' 207:
"For peoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious perfection."
'Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde,' 67:
"Auf der einen Seite hat man die schwarze Rasse, die am meisten irdisch ist. Wenn sie nach Westen geht, stirbt sie aus. Man hat die gelbe Rasse, die mitten zwischen Erde und Weltenall ist. Wenn sie nach Osten geht, wird sie braun, gliedert sich zu viel dem Weltenall an, stirbt aus. Die weiße Rasse ist die zukünftige, ist die am Geiste schaffende Rasse."
@@Footnotes2Plato I read this as synthesis not homogeneity and a developmental process toward self reproduction.
Given that we incarnate into many psycho-physiological organisms what does current science have to say about pigmentation? That is from evolutionary, bio chemical, environmental and any other covalent factors that help us understand how and why pigmentation occurs and what are the interactive realities with earth and celestial influence. One example of the latter is endogenous production of vitamin D. Would it be helpful to have a coherent understanding of these factors of the human organism?
It would definitely be helpful. I agree with a point Lorenzo made that it makes no sense to deny ethnic diversity. We are not all the same. This is why I emphasized the distinction between cultural diversity and political equality. Our political equality is not (or should not be) a function of any cultural or physiological sameness, obviously. But I would also say that attempts to essentialize this or that racial difference very easily goes off the rails. Steiner often makes ethnology seem like a straightforward scientific research program where objectivity is easy to achieve or adjudicate. So much good work has been done in the century after his death unveiling the ways cultural bias clouds objectivity in these matters. This sort of bias unveiling can also go too far, of course. But we need to approach the issue of how various ethnicities differ with great care, and it seems to me that despite his obvious love for all of humanity, some of Steiner's statements (which we should be clear he did not intend to be read so widely and out of context) do not helpfully contribute to the work we might want to do in this area today.
@@Footnotes2Plato I don't see where he makes ethnology seem straight forward when it depends on vast sweeps of time and massively complex realms and beings working hardly comprehensible ways. I of course agree with the rest of your sentiment which is why it is important to get it right no matter how we might wish it would be.
@@jeffbarney3584 I'm referring to the way he addresses this in PoF, Ch. 14 "Individuality and Genus." This is a CRUCIAL chapter for our purposes in this conversation, certainly. It is one of the clearest and most potent statements Steiner makes anywhere of the way out of racial animosities, in my opinion. But the way he put it here doesn't acknowledge the difficulty of overcoming the cultural/generic filters through which we judge those who appear different from us so as to achieve scientific objectivity: "Whatever lies short of this frontier [where people begin to be individual beings whose activity is based on free self-determination] may naturally become matter for academic study. The characteristics of race, people, nation and sex are the subject matter of special branches of study." We can and should study generic differences, but thus far I think we have very many examples of the way such study becomes tilted and partial rather than genuinely scientific. This sort of study doesn't just come naturally to us. It takes a tremendous amount of self-knowledge and spiritual discipline to avoid concocting self-serving abstractions when attempting to characterize the racial qualities of others. Indeed, academics trained in abstract methods and presupposing materialism now and in the past are not especially good at overcoming these biases (in the past they tended to be biased in the direction of European culture/phenotype as the norm and the best, while nowadays things have inverted, with whiteness often being identified with uniquely negative and distorted qualities).
@9:35 Not all of these churches are all of any generalized characteristics including not moved by the christ impulse. Not to mention that not all (to say the least) can be painted such. I wonder given your political leanings if this might be twinged with some politically motivated reasoning. Just as Douglas Murray's brilliant book)s) is flawed by a similar but differently leaning motivated reasoning which seems to limit the depth of his accurate assessment in the title War on the West.
I can't deny that there are some "political" motives underlying my feelings toward the white evangelical movement in the US. It is hard not to feel that way when many of these churches seek inappropriately to identify Christianity with a particular political ideology which, when and where it wins the power to do so, seeks to limit the rights of those they deem unworthy of political equality. But it does seem to me that if we are trying to evaluate Steiner's claims about skin color these sorts of examples are relevant. I believe I did qualify my statements to make clear that there are exceptions in any case (ie, I am not claiming any simple reversal here, but pointing out the disconfirming evidence with regard to Steiner's claim).
@49:10 Matt and anyone of course, what do you think is the spiritual impulses driving the rapidity of cultural confluences. Is the christ impulse at work there? if so how?
I think the truly world religions all have a role to play in helping us overcome ethnic divisions. This is true of Christianity as much as it is of Buddhism or Bahá'í etc (Christianity does not have a monopoly on the Christ impulse). I have found myself wanting to distinguish between "nation" and "state," as it seems to me that the former term implies something closer to "race" or "ethnicity" in that "nation" etymologically relates to birth, blood, kind, etc., whereas "state" is more about securing the political status of everyone in a territory, even if they are not related by blood, which in our age means securing individual political rights regardless of any generic characteristics. While I think the spiritual impulses driving the religions should be distinguished from the political impulses driving the formation of secular states, there is some important overlap in the sense that the value of individuality is itself is a kind of spiritual revelation (in Christianity it comes via the Imago Dei, in Buddhism via the Tathagatagarbha/Buddha-nature in each being, etc.).
@@Footnotes2Plato I would say all of these exoteric religions do have a performative role. Christ cannot be located in a religion and as far as how people self organize religions are one way politics another economics yet another. All are manifestations of moral impulses conveying to some degree the underlying realities in each domain and out of which each ontological domain they emerge. And they are isomorphic in interpenetrating mutual influence as are the spiritual realms out which they issue. The Buddha fro example play a role differently than spiritual beings never physically incarnated and differently one that has resurrected back into the earthly sphere.
Okay one by one. What does Steiner mean by the christ impulse?
Matt here. I took at stab at this question in an essay written many years ago for a course taught by Robert McDermott called "Krishna, Buddha, Christ." I'll share the section on Christ here, with a link to the rest of the essay (which also addresses Krishna and Buddha footnotes2plato.com/2009/08/24/gnostic-consciousness-knowing-with-spiritual-beings/):
While it has also been said of Buddha that he “walks on the water” (EPO, p. 90), Christ heralds the very Spirit of the water itself. Rudolf Steiner has said, “Buddha’s life ends with the transfiguration, whereas the most significant part of Jesus’ life begins after the Transfiguration,” (CMF, p. 97). By this, Steiner means that Christ not only became one with the light of the world (as Buddha did after his parinirvana), Christ is the being who radiates this light into the world of flesh and blood, into the very heart of the cosmos itself.
Just before his death, the historical Buddha, according to the Dalai Lama, “stated that the body of a fully enlightened being…is…impermanent and subject to [transience, impermanence, and non-endurance]” (GH, p. 120), just like every other phenomenal form. According to Steiner, Buddha’s transfiguration merged him with the “all-pervading blissful life of the spirit” (CMF, p. 97), thereby demonstrating humanity’s origin in the divine Word (Logos).
In contrast, as is written in the Gospel according to John, in Christ, “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us” (1:14). In this way, the spiritual essence of the cosmos incarnated on earth, suffered crucifixion, and was resurrected. As a Sun being, Christ expresses the hidden meaning of light and warmth, radiating wisdom and love upon all humanity. Christ’s transfiguration makes transparent, according to Jean Gebser, “the genuine irruption of the other side into this side, the presence of the beyond in the here and now, of death in life, of the transcendent in the immanent, of the divine in the human” (EPO, p. 529).
While Buddha provides the method that purifies the soul, returning Psyche to a virgin state free of the conflicting desires and fears of a merely earthly existence, only Christ can provide the spiritual power that births in us the divine Wisdom capable of loving the world entire.
As is spoken by Christ to His Father:
…the glory which You gave Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are One: I in them, and You in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have Loved them, as You have Loved Me (John 17:22-23).
The Love made possible by Christ’s incarnation on earth is what unifies not only the entire human race, but the cosmos itself into a single Body whose life is eternal. This, the Body of Christ, is the true Church open to anyone with the Faith to heal the separation from the spiritual realm caused by original sin. This sin was the knowledge of good and evil that turned the soul into a battleground and made death its principle enemy. As is written by Paul in Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.”
Faith was distinguished from belief at the outset of this essay in order to make it clear that the wishful desiring of the latter only clouds our ability to listen for divine inspiration. Although it is written, “…blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29), we may read the use of the term “believed” in this context as more akin to the openheartedness of Faith than the egoic desire for wish fulfillment. But the open ears afforded by Faith are not enough to fully and intuitively participate in the meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.
As Steiner has said,
Faith allows a person to participate unconsciously in the Mystery of Golgotha, [but] initiation leads to a fully conscious connection with the power that streams invisibly from events depicted in the New Testament (CMF, p. 100).
In other words, while Faith brings us to the water, it cannot make us drink of its immortalizing Wisdom. However, the Resurrection of Christ is significant precisely because it transforms what had been revealed only to a few in secret into an event upon the world stage of history. What had been a mythological image becomes, after Christ, an actual event (CMF, p. 98). Given Faith, though one may currently lack the spiritual sight to consciously commune with the Wisdom of Christ, realization is nonetheless assured and made inevitable by the deed that was done on the Cross for all humanity.
But as was made clear at the outset, I cannot settle for the hearsay of stories, but must myself die and rise by the Love of Christ. I must know, with Paul, “that Christ, being raised from the dead, dies no more,” (Romans 6:9), and “that our old man [was] crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Romans 6:6). With this, the Christ in me becomes alive unto God, I am reborn, and my Psyche remembers her true name: Sophia, Bride of God.
My soul is but a reflection of Sophia, the divine Wisdom who’s Love was so great it overflowed the Pleroma and created the world. As Eve, She tempted me when I was Adam with the serpent’s secret fruit. I ate and gained knowledge that this world was not my origin and that death must not be my destiny. Christ was Her rescue mission, the Savior sent to Redeem Her creation from the sin of separation from God. Christ is “the Light of the world” (John 9:5) who shines upon the shattered mirror of many souls making each One with Him in Love.
Works Cited
ISM - Bamford, Christopher, ed. Isis Mary Sophia: Her Mission and Ours. Steiner Books, 2003.
BG - Bhagavad gita and its message with text, translation and Sri Aurobindo’s commentary. Twin Lakes, WI: Lotus Light Publications, 1995.
HM - Chardin, Pierre Teilhard de. The Heart of Matter. New York: Harvest Books, 2002.
EPO - Gebser, Jean. Ever-present origin. Athens, Ohio: Ohio UP, 1986.
GH - His Holiness The Dalai Lama. The Good Heart A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. Minneapolis: Wisdom Publications, 1998.
CMF - Rudolf, Steiner,. Christianity as mystical fact. Hudson, N.Y: Anthroposophic P, 1997.
Thank you. I love your writing here. Your thinking resonates strongly and opens up new imagery for me. Where do you think Steiner locates the Christ impulse in the human existential frame? What role does Steiner suggest the subtle and physical bodies play in an evolution toward christ consciousness? What role does he suggest intelligences other than human play in this mission?
Today you are not allowed to say some cultures are higher evolved than others -- which is ridiculous. I asked a black woman if some cultures are higher than others -- she said NO! and that you wouldn't allow to judge them. So I asked her - if my culture believed cannabalism was okay -- which this be acceptible. She got quiet and then said No -- I told her she was breaking her rules. It is about CULTURE and belief systems.
With all respect if you don’t consider Genocide and destruction of the natural world of human, animal, plant mineral and elementals and you’re so proud of your advances of white culture take responsibility for the heartless choices made upon the world, depredatory destruction is another form of cannibalism.
Listening to Angus "he isnt racist..." "he called them the yellows".....
I'm not sure I track you, but I might. Are you saying that only a racist could refer to a group of people as 'yellow'? If so, I get it, but I disagree. But I get it!
@@rooruffneck breaking humans in to groups called races is racism and is racist. We don’t call left handed people a race of people nor would would we say tall people are a race the same should be true for skin.
Racism can should be viewed beyond skin color and when we say a skin color is indicative of a race existing we are being racist.
Homo spaiens can have different phenotype and we can point that out with out taking the additional step racializing those features.
@@Travthewhite "When we say a skin colour is indicative of an existing race we are being racist". That's exactly how this world is going to hell. Can't you see how stupid such a position is? How hypocritical? Why do you think black people are better than white people in most athletic activities? Chance?