Rudolf Steiner's Fifth Gospel by John David Ebert

[AshvinP]

True, and I can't help but think of veganism and Gaia-style environmentalism in the context of spirit-porn. That stuff sells like hot cakes! Somewhere down the line you happen upon antinatalism, which is the most fetishistic of them all.

Yeah. Many of these movements emerge from half-understood sentiments.

Veganism is interesting because it has many good points. I'm grateful that movies like Earthlings exist. Also good unbiased information on whole food plant based diets, environmental impact on factory farming and so on. But things are much more complicated than that and trying to force the world to go vegan can't really work.

I agree. To be clear, I was highlighting those 'movements' in particular because they all dimly reflect a kernel of intuitive spiritual truth which has then been flattened out and demystified into a totalizing rationalist ideology. Whether it be the regressive desire for 'animal sacrifice' without thought for the harm caused, the habitual separation and division of human culture from nature, or the incessant ignorance of existential human suffering in a world of infinite complexity - they are all valid spiritual critiques. But the 'movements' seek quick, undisciplined, and external "solutions" to all of these spiritual issues. They motivate resentment and compulsion rather than freedom and understanding.

[Cleric K]

In relation to Steiner adulators, I wonder what 'they' make of his less well publicized beliefs and pronouncement in terms of what said pronouncements imply about his thought-feeling-n-belief-process, IOW his soul's developmental status? Take this, for example - from https://morningstaronline.co.uk/node/43618

David,

it does you no honor to go against Steiner with such a cheap shot.
One does not form an opinion on a subject by only examining the views of its opponents.

If there's one thing that can be understood from Steiner is that within every human beings lies the possibility for the unfoldment of self-consciousness in freedom. It is not an incident that his most import work is the Philosophy of Freedom. It is in this process that one attains to a level of consciousness that is above ego, gender, nation, race, even species! Within each one of us there is a kernel of spiritual activity that has the possibility to differentiate and see through all these layers. That's what freedom is about. It's not about doing whatever we want, without knowing why we want it. I'm not free if I identify with my nation or with my race. I'm only free if I experience myself as a spiritual being that uses the body within a racial, national, cultural context as a tool. Tool that should be put to work not for my own sensual pleasures but for the benefit of the whole evolution - of every nation, race, animal, plant and mineral.

You see, people don't really have anything much to say about Anthroposophy. If one had read at least a little and understood it, he'll have no choice but to say "Well, everything here is about rising man to full consciousness, about lifting him out of his animalistic state, where he's being thrown around on the waves of passions and desires that he can't control. And this is achieved not by preaching some vague religious morals but by finding what is real within the human being and starting from there. Through proper cognition of ourselves and our environment we find their relations. Out of these relations I understand how to conduct my life such that my Spirit can express freely and unhindered by the blind instinctive nature."

And this is exactly why Spiritual Science is so hated. Because it leads man towards reality. And this people don't want. They still hope that science will prove that it is natural to be weak, to be thrown around by conflicting desires and confused ideas. That's how the brain is wired - can't go against it! Religion is also convenient - man is weak, man is sinful... and thus man dreams happily. But when someone comes along and says "Here - the possibility for human perfection is within you. It is possible to unfold the slumbering forces within your soul, experience deeper strata of reality and from there draw the impulses of true morality, of brotherly Love. Don't take my word for it: you can see it for yourself", now this really crosses the line of "decency".

So that's why Spiritual Science is hated so much. It's much more pleasant to dance and sing, and to await the Pleiadean starship to take you on board for a ride through the Universe, isn't it? But to hear that one must put effort, to rectify every flaw of character, to make sacrifices, to work for the whole without expecting to get anything in return... now who wants to hear that?

And that's why over and over again people come with cheap attacks like in this tabloid. They simply have nothing else to hold on to. If they say "Stupid Anthroposophy! Proclaiming that man can outgrow his blind urges and instincts and become a moral human being through knowledge of self and the Cosmos!", that wouldn't sound very clever, would it? That's why, they take few things out of context and try to spread the webs of Maya even more over the sleeping souls.

John 18
22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.
23 “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?”

Anyway. To address the racial attacks. Difficult topic, especially in our "politically correct" times. Very difficult to say anything without someone getting offended.

Steiner, more than anyone, knew what the races were - not only as bodies but as soul and spiritual structure. What is an objective fact, is that there are human beings on different levels of development. Take a cannibalistic tribe somewhere deep in the jungle, as there are still such tribes that have no contact with modern civilization. Skin color doesn't matter. Let's suppose these cannibals are white, snow white. Now would you think that your next incarnation would be in such a tribe? Probably not. And not because of some blind arrogance but because souls prepare their next incarnations in such a way, that they are able to further their development. There's no use of an incarnation if one can't develop his soul forces even further. Now what would you learn in a cannibalistic tribe? Something that you don't already know? Would it be of any benefit for you to start from scratch - no knowledge of science, philosophy, Christ, Brahman, no nothing?

It's a fact that for one century the Earth has become very, very different place. There were way more segregated tribes back then. There have been many tribes in Africa that were very active in animal sacrifice and voodoo magic. Again - this has nothing to do with skin color! We are speaking of objective facts. There are groups of humans that form a specific environment where souls of the appropriate levels of development can incarnate. I guess you don't want cannibals roaming your neighborhood and spilling goat blood at your doorway. AGAIN - nothing to do with skin color - white cannibals! It's the level of development of the souls incarnating we're talking about.

It is complete nonsense to speak about modern people of color who live in modern civilization, in the above context. The souls are completely different. If white babies are left on an island (assuming they are somehow cared for until they grow up but without implanting any education) they'll turn into savages. Then when these savages breed, souls will incarnate for which these conditions are appropriate.

As you can see, not only that Anthroposophy doesn't breed racial segregation but exactly the opposite - only through deep knowledge of reality can these problems be resolved. The modern social warriors can never solve the problems because their starting point is already segregation. Their axiomatic foundations are "we are different. I'm black, you are white. Now we'll have to respect each other." This is the same problem as in philosophy. We axiomatically postulate the divorce between mind and matter and then scratch our heads on how to resolve it. It's the same thing. We can't get anywhere with "blacks and whites are different, now what can we do to unite them?".

When one starts from Spiritual knowledge, one starts from the true foundations - at the core of each one of us there's pure Spirit active. At our stage of evolution this Spirit is experienced most directly in thinking. This thinking can be free. Ego, nation, race, social status, gender are only clothes of the thinking Spirit. We are free only if we don't identify with the clothes but see through them.

[AshvinP]

Yeah I understand and agree, my impatience just gets the better of me. I am also kind of hoping that, 100 years or so on from Steiner, Jung and others laying out these paths, our collective subconscious has evolved so that they are more readily absorbed by myself and others who are genuinely seeking. The latter is key, though... if there is no voluntary orientation towards inner transformation, it will all seem like a huge moralistic imposition and burden that we are being oppressed and victimized by.

One of the 'problems' which your idea of 'voluntary' doesn't grapple with, IMO Ashvin, is the phenomenon of 'cultism' - people often join/follow group-think 'tanks' quite 'voluntarily'. Witness our current social-media 'scene'.

I don't understand how you are equating indoctrination within a cult to 'voluntary' orientation towards inner transformation. Even if we assume the first choice to join up is voluntary, which is a problematic assumption, all subsequent choices have been made subordinate to the group-think.

In relation to Steiner adulators, I wonder what 'they' make of his less well publicized beliefs and pronouncement in terms of what said pronouncements imply about his thought-feeling-n-belief-process, IOW his soul's developmental status? Take this, for example - from https://morningstaronline.co.uk/node/43618 :

I'll defer to Cleric's response here, and just sincerely ask that you continue posting modern 'socialist' critiques of Steiner so that we continue getting such insightful and profound responses.

[David_Sundaram]

David,

it does you no honor to go against Steiner with such a cheap shot.
One does not form an opinion on a subject by only examining the views of its opponents.

The 'opinion' I shared was, as clearly stated, pertained to the level of Steiner's soul development. I think this has implications which pertain to the issue of the 'nature' of his vision/philosophy/whatever.

People who are only into 'head' trips (the implication being they are 'out of touch' with 'heart' and 'soul' stuff - as Steiner was IMO) do not care about such matters.

I am not looking to be 'honor' or 'be 'honored by' the ;ikes of you, Cleric. P;ease know that I did not read any further than the lines of yours which I quoted above.

[ScottRoberts]

David,

What Cleric said. And I invite you to judge whether Steiner was a racist, not from a tabloid, but from Steiner's words (Chapter 14 of The Philosophy of Freedom, "Individuality and Genus"):
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/En ... 4_c14.html

[Cleric K]

OK David,

there's nothing below that first lines (which you quoted) that was addressed to you personally. It's a general discussion on the common reasons of attacks and short details about the races.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. It was only fair to present the other side to such accusations. If nothing was said, people following this thread, might have gotten the impression that it's "the silence in face of the facts".

Anyway. I know you are not looking to be honored by me, much less to be Loved
Nevertheless, I must state, just for the record, that nothing but Love flows from my heart towards you! And even when such polarizations of the astral bodies occur, I'm grateful for communicating with you

Accuse me of being an egoist but I simply don't have neither the time, nor the energy, nor the nerves to feel anything else but Love for everything and everyone
This is the most natural state. And you know it - your philosophy is built on that.

[David_Sundaram]

Accuse me of being an egoist but I simply don't have neither the time, nor the energy, nor the nerves to feel anything else but Love for everything and everyone
This is the most natural state. And you know it - your philosophy is built on that.

Sticking to my original, not addressed to 'you', point:.

I challenged the value/validity of Steiner's pronouncements (about 'Christ', etc., etc., etc.) on the basis of his (reportedly) stated pronouncements about 'black' vs. 'white' people. The latter indicate (to me!) that he was on a 'head'-disconnected-from-understanding/empathetic-'heart' 'trip'. I have the same judgmental position in relation to Nietzsche among others who are 'highly' regarded in 'head'-tripping-disconnected-from-empathetic-'heart' 'philosophical' circles.

By extension, because you obviously did not resonate (i.e. did not meaningfully relate) to my 'point' and simply spoke in favor of Steiner, I 'accused' you of being 'disconnected' in such a way as well.

I do not doubt that you believe/think you are completely (universally) 'loving' and experience warm-fizzy 'relatonal' feelings to go along with that.

But being universally loving requires that one discern and reject (i.e. not, in the 'name' of 'unconditional' 'love', 'nobly' 'honor') the kind of 'warped' 'spirituality' that many head-without-heart 'trippers', such as Steiner and many other 'brilliant' intellectuals, 'cleverly' present as being 'truly' 'enlightened'.

P.S. added later: 'Universally' loving doesn't mean 'equally' loving - it means that one's 'love' is impartial.

[David_Sundaram]

David,

What Cleric said. And I invite you to judge whether Steiner was a racist, not from a tabloid, but from Steiner's words (Chapter 14 of The Philosophy of Freedom, "Individuality and Genus"):
https://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/En ... 4_c14.html

The subject is complicated, and pro-anouncements can be deceiving, as in "Some of my best firiends are black'! 'Implications' (as well as 'blindness'!) are in the 'I' of of the beholder, Scott.

From https://social-ecology.org/wp/2009/01/a ... fascism-2/

"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism

In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The lecture series was titled “The Mission of National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology.” In the Oslo lectures Steiner presented his theory of “folk souls” or “national souls” (Volksseelen in German, Steiner’s native tongue) and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the “Nordic spirit.” The “national souls” of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner explained, to the “Germanic-Nordic” peoples, the world’s most spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of the highest of five historical “root races.” This superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the “Aryan” race. 1

If this peculiar cosmology sounds eerily similar to the teutonic myths of Himmler and Hitler, the resemblance is no accident. Anthroposophy and National Socialism both have deep roots in the confluence of nationalism, right-wing populism, proto-environmentalist romanticism and esoteric spiritualism that characterized much of German and Austrian culture at the end of the nineteenth century. But the connection between Steiner’s racially stratified pseudo-religion and the rise of the Nazis goes beyond mere philosophical parallels. Anthroposophy had a powerful practical influence on the so-called “green wing” of German fascism. Moreover, the actual politics of Steiner and his followers have consistently displayed a profoundly reactionary streak. 2

Why does anthroposophy, despite its patently racist elements and its compromised past, continue to enjoy a reputation as progressive, tolerant, enlightened and ecological? The details of Steiner’s teachings are not well known outside of the anthroposophist movement, and within that movement the lengthy history of ideological implication in fascism is mostly repressed or denied outright. In addition, many individual anthroposophists have earned respect for their work in alternative education, in organic farming, and within the environmental movement. Nevertheless, it is an unfortunate fact that the record of anthroposophist collaboration with a specifically “environmentalist” strain of fascism continues into the twenty-first century.

Organized anthroposophist groups are often best known through their far-flung network of public institutions. The most popular of these is probably the Waldorf school movement, with hundreds of branches worldwide, followed by the biodynamic agriculture movement, which is especially active in Germany and the United States. Other well-known anthroposophist projects include Weleda cosmetics and pharmaceuticals and the Demeter brand of health food products. The new age Findhorn community in Scotland also has a strong anthroposophist component. Anthroposophists played an important role in the formation of the German Greens, and Germany’s former Interior Minister, Otto Schily, one of the most prominent founders of the Greens, is an anthroposophist."

In light of this broad public exposure, it is perhaps surprising that the ideological underpinnings of anthroposophy are not better known. 3 Anthroposophists themselves, however, view their highly esoteric doctrine as an “occult science” suitable to a spiritually enlightened elite. The very name “anthroposophy” suggests to many outsiders a humanist orientation. But anthroposophy is in many respects a deeply anti-humanist worldview, and humanists like Theodor Adorno and Ernst Bloch opposed it from the beginning. 4 Its rejection of reason in favor of mystical experience, its subordination of human action to supernatural forces, and its thoroughly hierarchical model of spiritual development all mark anthroposophy as inimical to humanist values."

Do you see anything wrong (as in "What;s wrong with this piucrure?") in Neitzche's belief that some peeps being or becoming Übermensch's ('super'men) Scott?. Ooopsm here we go with that 'Superiority' idea, which many 'brainiacs' ('philosophers' prominently among them) implicitly subscribe to and celebrate among themselves!

[Cleric K]

Just think what the very same authors that come up with these articles, would concoct, if they had to write something about your own stuff.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Just think what the very same authors that come up with these articles, would concoct, if they had to write something about your own stuff.

Yeah I suppose any hierarchical model of soul development could be twisted by some propaganda spin doctors to screen for perceived spiritual laggards in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

To be honest, I'm not well-versed in Steiner's actual writings, but I'm curious if anyone can come up with passages from his books, in his own words, that would give credence to such secondhand interpretations of yet more interpretations actually being other than just misrepresentations skewed to support some confirmation bias ~ in much the same way that Jordan Peterson's body of work has been misinterpreted and misrepresented to support some nonsensical notion that he's an advocate for some alt-right white supremacist movement, by a misinformed crowd who tend not to actually read his books, but rely on the skewed interpretations of spin doctors with their own separate agenda.