Rudolf Steiner: Vaccines to Kill The Soul?!

[AshvinP]

As Cleric said before, the same holds for the "vaccines will be developed to kill the human soul" assertion of Steiner recounted in the video. I get what you mean in terms of using that video as a means for us to add this context in for others, so I apologize if I misjudged your intentions earlier. It's not at all the way I would go about it, as I presume many people are still confused by what exactly Steiner is talking about, and Ben and Eugene's typical projections and antipathy-fueled comments don't help clear up the confusion at all, but I suppose some helpful discussion can still come of it.

I can concede how the OP can be taken in a problematic way, and apologize for not being more clear about the intention. So for the record, it was not the intention to be anti-Steiner—notwithstanding I don't expect that every idea he had must be right—but just a curiosity about why Steiner would envision that take on vaccines. The intention was more an epistemological inquiry into how to distinguish between false beliefs and so-called occult knowledge of spiritual forces that impact upon the corporeal construct, and no different really than curiously questioning what Steiner claimed to know about Atlantis. For that reason, any comments that want to steer the discussion into a debate to either refute or support the rationale current anti-vaxer arguments are using against vaccines, will be discouraged and/or deleted.

Dana,

This question has been answered in various ways by Cleric, but let me try one variation out here.

We need to start over from scratch to answer your question. We need to have a clear understanding of what "science" is, for example, and why our modern conceptions of it are so flawed. Some people will refuse to engage in such an inquiry out of sheer principle - the principle that what they already "know for certain" is how the world actually is and must always be. More importantly, they cling to the principle that the reasons why we know what we know are unimportant. We prize our "certain" knowledge so much that we don't even stop to think about how we have never actually experienced any of those claims made by modern science that we have the utmost confidence in. Who here has run the QM experiments that establish "quantum entanglement", "wave-particle duality", "quantum decoherence", "uncertainty principle", etc.? Who here even knows someone directly who has run such experiments or published the papers with the results? Not many, if any, I presume.

So should we abandon all such conclusions? Yes and no. We should view them with a skeptical mind until we have at least established to ourselves why our skepticism is not warranted. What are we doing when we read about or listen to or watch these QM conclusions and determine they are valid? Clearly we are not running the experiments and observing the results ourselves. What we are doing is purely ideal - we are taking ideal concepts, abstracted out from an underlying Reality which is clearly more richly qualitative than mathematical equations or concepts about the mathematical equations, and testing them against our Reason and what other ideal constellations we have reasoned through. It is all occurring within our own minds, there are no sense-perceptions involved whatsoever. Is this a fallible process? Yes, most definitely, which is why eventually direct sense-experience is needed. But, until then, do we just have to throw our hands up and say, "I can't have any confidence in QM conclusions because I have not experienced the results myself?". No, that is equally as absurd and stultifying as thinking we know those conclusions for certain.

Why can't this logic above be applied to the "occult knowledge" of spiritual tradition? Is there any principle reason why that knowledge is different in kind from QM conclusions? Is it because the QM conclusions come to us from "reputable sources" who give us all the information we need to reason them through? I highly doubt that - not a single person has ever approached me with all the concrete arguments I need to understand QM and its conclusions, let alone someone I consider beyond reproach. But even if that were the case, what does it mean for someone to be "reputable" source of information? That is again something we conclude by reasoning through how well their logic holds together in a purely ideal sense. We don't go behind their back double-checking every sensory fact they have observed to make their arguments. So, all that considered, is Cleric not one of these reputable sources, or Steiner, or anyone else for that matter? Perhaps, but we need to reason to ourselves why that is the case - if we find, after reflection, that we are not going through that process, then we know our subconscious prejudices are really at work in the formation of our conclusions and/or our unwillingness to commit to any conclusions whatsoever.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Why can't this logic above be applied to the "occult knowledge" of spiritual tradition? Is there any principle reason why that knowledge is different in kind from QM conclusions? Is it because the QM conclusions come to us from "reputable sources" who give us all the information we need to reason them through? I highly doubt that - not a single person has ever approached me with all the concrete arguments I need to understand QM and its conclusions, let alone someone I consider beyond reproach. But even if that were the case, what does it mean for someone to be "reputable" source of information? That is again something we conclude by reasoning through how well their logic holds together in a purely ideal sense. We don't go behind their back double-checking every sensory fact they have observed to make their arguments. So, all that considered, is Cleric not one of these reputable sources, or Steiner, or anyone else for that matter? Perhaps, but we need to reason to ourselves why that is the case - if we find, after reflection, that we are not going through that process, then we know our subconscious prejudices are really at work in the formation of our conclusions and/or our unwillingness to commit to any conclusions whatsoever.

Yes, I get that. So allow this example of how one might apply that to the following: In this psyche's encounter with 'light beings' a message is conveyed that, however it may otherwise appear, however hard to accept, everyone without exception is where they need to be in their spiritual unfolding to learn what they need to learn, perhaps even dying and re-birthed a thousandfold, and being guided, whether aware of it or not, by the oversoul from which one's corporeal life expression is expressed. So who is the reputable source in this case, that renders this more than a false belief? If someone else says it's false because their encounter with such beings conveyed a very different message, how is it put to the test of veracity?

[AshvinP]

Why can't this logic above be applied to the "occult knowledge" of spiritual tradition? Is there any principle reason why that knowledge is different in kind from QM conclusions? Is it because the QM conclusions come to us from "reputable sources" who give us all the information we need to reason them through? I highly doubt that - not a single person has ever approached me with all the concrete arguments I need to understand QM and its conclusions, let alone someone I consider beyond reproach. But even if that were the case, what does it mean for someone to be "reputable" source of information? That is again something we conclude by reasoning through how well their logic holds together in a purely ideal sense. We don't go behind their back double-checking every sensory fact they have observed to make their arguments. So, all that considered, is Cleric not one of these reputable sources, or Steiner, or anyone else for that matter? Perhaps, but we need to reason to ourselves why that is the case - if we find, after reflection, that we are not going through that process, then we know our subconscious prejudices are really at work in the formation of our conclusions and/or our unwillingness to commit to any conclusions whatsoever.

Yes, I get that. So allow this example of how one might apply that to the following: In this psyche's encounter with 'light beings' a message is conveyed that, however it may otherwise appear, however hard to accept, everyone without exception is where they need to be in their spiritual unfolding to learn what they need to learn, perhaps even dying and re-birthed a thousandfold, and being guided, whether aware of it or not, by the oversoul from which one's corporeal life expression is expressed. So who is the reputable source in this case, that renders this more than a false belief? If someone else says it's false because their encounter with such beings conveyed a very different message, how is it put to the test of veracity?

A 'light being' who appears and conveys a message is the sort of experience you should withhold all judgment on until you first reason through the basic conceptual foundation which explains why such beings may appear to you and convey such messages (not whether the message is true or false, but what within the structure of Reality allows any such messages to be communicated in the first place). You will notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there. We may want to slow down and ask ourselves why we are even concerning ourselves with such hypotheticals (or possibly real experiences, yet nevertheless devoid of any context for evaluating their ideal content) before figuring out the basics of what sort of structured Reality we are dealing with here.

[AshvinP]

Why can't this logic above be applied to the "occult knowledge" of spiritual tradition? Is there any principle reason why that knowledge is different in kind from QM conclusions? Is it because the QM conclusions come to us from "reputable sources" who give us all the information we need to reason them through? I highly doubt that - not a single person has ever approached me with all the concrete arguments I need to understand QM and its conclusions, let alone someone I consider beyond reproach. But even if that were the case, what does it mean for someone to be "reputable" source of information? That is again something we conclude by reasoning through how well their logic holds together in a purely ideal sense. We don't go behind their back double-checking every sensory fact they have observed to make their arguments. So, all that considered, is Cleric not one of these reputable sources, or Steiner, or anyone else for that matter? Perhaps, but we need to reason to ourselves why that is the case - if we find, after reflection, that we are not going through that process, then we know our subconscious prejudices are really at work in the formation of our conclusions and/or our unwillingness to commit to any conclusions whatsoever.

Yes, I get that. So allow this example of how one might apply that to the following: In this psyche's encounter with 'light beings' a message is conveyed that, however it may otherwise appear, however hard to accept, everyone without exception is where they need to be in their spiritual unfolding to learn what they need to learn, perhaps even dying and re-birthed a thousandfold, and being guided, whether aware of it or not, by the oversoul from which one's corporeal life expression is expressed. So who is the reputable source in this case, that renders this more than a false belief? If someone else says it's false because their encounter with such beings conveyed a very different message, how is it put to the test of veracity?

A 'light being' who appears and conveys a message is the sort of experience you should withhold all judgment on until you first reason through the basic conceptual foundation which explains why such beings may appear to you and convey such messages (not whether the message is true or false, but what within the structure of Reality allows any such messages to be communicated in the first place). You will notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there. We may want to slow down and ask ourselves why we are even concerning ourselves with such hypotheticals (or possibly real experiences, yet nevertheless devoid of any context for evaluating their ideal content) before figuring out the basics of what sort of structured Reality we are dealing with here.

I will add another consideration here as well - the Anthroposophical approach is very pragmatic. It doesn't only evaluate claims to "truth" based on empirical verifiability, but also on how those claims influence our practical experiences and activities. Or, more accurately, the practical influence is itself an aspect of the phenomenon which should be tested and verified by Reason. So the 'light being' who conveys, "everyone without exception is where they need to be in their spiritual unfolding" is making a very broad claim which may very well be accurate in a strictly theoretical way, but what is the practical influence of the claim? Does anything about being "where one needs to be" exclude the fact that we must also constantly strive to be in a more complete state of being than we are now? Then that more complete state becomes "where one needs to be". Or if another 'light being' appears to another person and says "you are not at all where you need to be", does that actually conflict with the other claim? All of these questions go to show, in this hypothetical, we are really deluding ourselves if we think this is how Truth is revealed to our soul. It does not manifest as isolated messages without any context and practical significance to how we have been thinking, feeling, desiring, and acting in the world.

[Soul_of_Shu]

A 'light being' who appears and conveys a message is the sort of experience you should withhold all judgment on until you first reason through the basic conceptual foundation which explains why such beings may appear to you and convey such messages (not whether the message is true or false, but what within the structure of Reality allows any such messages to be communicated in the first place). You will notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there. We may want to slow down and ask ourselves why we are even concerning ourselves with such hypotheticals (or possibly real experiences, yet nevertheless devoid of any context for evaluating their ideal content) before figuring out the basics of what sort of structured Reality we are dealing with here.

As you know, I take a highly intuitive approach to this, and so I intuitively resonate when I read the following ...

Although the painting depicts things in somewhat different sense that what I've drawn, it's still indicative that the Guardian Angel stands behind the painter's head and sees through the human consciousness. We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle. Even when we dismantle all conscious contents and enter Adur's nothingness or Ramana's pure consciousness, the Angle's consciousness will still be behind our back. We can only experience the Angel's perspective if we let it flow in us from above. This can only be achieved through the polar soul disposition. We either open up in humility and prayer to the Angel and follow how it stirs our astral body in Imaginative consciousness, or we do that on even deeper level and we live together with the Angel's Cosmic Thoughts as they pass through us in Inspirative consciousness, or we surrender our Earthly humanity to the greatest extent and merge with the "I" perspective of the Angel in Intuitive consciousness.

... And so I have to wonder what 'Angelic' Thoughts pass through Cleric as transcriber when he is writing his inspired artful outpourings on how Reality is structured, such that I ask Whose thoughts are they really? As such, when you say I should "notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there", I actually notice that he may indeed implicitly be relying on such beings, whether they are given credit or not.

[AshvinP]

A 'light being' who appears and conveys a message is the sort of experience you should withhold all judgment on until you first reason through the basic conceptual foundation which explains why such beings may appear to you and convey such messages (not whether the message is true or false, but what within the structure of Reality allows any such messages to be communicated in the first place). You will notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there. We may want to slow down and ask ourselves why we are even concerning ourselves with such hypotheticals (or possibly real experiences, yet nevertheless devoid of any context for evaluating their ideal content) before figuring out the basics of what sort of structured Reality we are dealing with here.

As you know, I take a highly intuitive approach to this, and so I intuitively resonate when I read the following ...

Although the painting depicts things in somewhat different sense that what I've drawn, it's still indicative that the Guardian Angel stands behind the painter's head and sees through the human consciousness. We can never find the the Angel's consciousness within our mind sphere, no matter how many false beliefs we dismantle. Even when we dismantle all conscious contents and enter Adur's nothingness or Ramana's pure consciousness, the Angle's consciousness will still be behind our back. We can only experience the Angel's perspective if we let it flow in us from above. This can only be achieved through the polar soul disposition. We either open up in humility and prayer to the Angel and follow how it stirs our astral body in Imaginative consciousness, or we do that on even deeper level and we live together with the Angel's Cosmic Thoughts as they pass through us in Inspirative consciousness, or we surrender our Earthly humanity to the greatest extent and merge with the "I" perspective of the Angel in Intuitive consciousness.

... And so I have to wonder what 'Angelic' Thoughts pass through Cleric as transcriber when he is writing his inspired artful outpourings on how Reality is structured, such that I ask Whose thoughts are they really? As such, when you say I should "notice Cleric has not once relied on messages from 'light beings' to convey any information regarding the structure of spiritual activities (W-F-T), higher cognition, or the path one may take to get there", I actually notice that he may indeed implicitly be relying on such beings, whether they are given credit or not.

Dana,

I meant in the context of your question which was describing a specific entity appearing for the purposes of conveying to you a specific message (see also additional reply posted right before your latest comment). At a more general level, we definitely exist in a Reality structured by many other beings. Our desires, feelings, and thoughts are directly structured through the activities of these other beings. We are not other than these beings in our deepest essence. We share the same Spirit-Soul. When Cleric speaks of "higher cognition", he is in fact speaking of integrating with the consciousness of 'higher' beings, which is what we can also simply label as "spiritual evolution". That is what the higher beings are: Spirit-Souls at more complete stages of evolution than we currently are. Even when we investigate with normal cognitive Reason any truth claims (or when we desire, feel, think, and act in general), we are in fact working through these many other beings as they also work through us.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Even when we investigate with normal cognitive Reason any truth claims (or when we desire, feel, think, and act in general), we are in fact working through these many other beings as they also work through us.

Well, if it is a 'fact', placing it above even a justified belief, I still feel that it's a fact that would be totally lost on this mind, had there not been the initial, indelible experiential component that inspired one to seek a structured model and framework through which it might be expressed as something other than some wishful fantasy, for which I'm grateful to those who have the cogent capacity to render it so.

[AshvinP]

Even when we investigate with normal cognitive Reason any truth claims (or when we desire, feel, think, and act in general), we are in fact working through these many other beings as they also work through us.

Well, if it is a 'fact', placing it above even a justified belief, I still feel that it's a fact that would be totally lost on this mind, had there not been the initial, indelible experiential component that inspired one to seek a structured model and framework through which it might be expressed as something other than some wishful fantasy, for which I'm grateful to those who have the cogent capacity to render it so.

I see where the disconnect is here. Let's go back to QM example - it is a fact that quantum entanglement of 'particles' occurs. But would we expect anyone to simply accept that fact without reasoning it through for themselves? The same applies to 'facts' of spiritual science. If you ask Cleric or myself direct questions about what spiritual science claims to know, we will give you direct answers. But we are clearly leaving out most of the reasoning which leads to those answers (actually Cleric tends to include most of it, as I am sure you notice), and that is what each individual should seek out for themselves. We can provide links, summaries, helpful hints, etc. whenever possible, but we can't recreate the entire reasoning process in each post which deals with these questions. All of this is said in the context of your original question of how to distinguish between justified knowledge and mere 'beliefs' when confronted by various spiritual claims. To summarize, we need to recognize what we are doing when confronted by any claim in the various domains of life, so that we can learn to trust that our own spiritual activity is a reliable source. For me personally, I did not have any sense of "aha, now I have had the indelible experience which makes me ready to seriously ask these questions and investigate them". Perhaps that happens to some, but I suspect it is rare and most people would share my experience of, "well, I can either sit here and put off any investigation indefinitely because I am not sure exactly where to start or how to proceed, OR I can start somewhere (like within observation of my own thinking activity) and let the Spirit subtly guide me, through my own reasoning process, and see how the rest unfolds from there".

[Eugene I]

Reason (logical consistency) alone is necessary but insufficient to verify the beliefs/hypotheses about the reality. We see a lot of paradigms (all kinds of philosophical and religious belief systems, conspiracy theories and sectarian Scientology-like belief systems) that are logically quite consistent within themselves but yet incoherent with reality.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I see where the disconnect is here. Let's go back to QM example - it is a fact that quantum entanglement of 'particles' occurs. But would we expect anyone to simply accept that fact without reasoning it through for themselves? The same applies to 'facts' of spiritual science. If you ask Cleric or myself direct questions about what spiritual science claims to know, we will give you direct answers. But we are clearly leaving out most of the reasoning which leads to those answers (actually Cleric tends to include most of it, as I am sure you notice), and that is what each individual should seek out for themselves. We can provide links, summaries, helpful hints, etc. whenever possible, but we can't recreate the entire reasoning process in each post which deals with these questions. All of this is said in the context of your original question of how to distinguish between justified knowledge and mere 'beliefs' when confronted by various spiritual claims. To summarize, we need to recognize what we are doing when confronted by any claim in the various domains of life, so that we can learn to trust that our own spiritual activity is a reliable source. For me personally, I did not have any sense of "aha, now I have had the indelible experience which makes me ready to seriously ask these questions and investigate them". Perhaps that happens to some, but I suspect it is rare and most people would share my experience of, "well, I can either sit here and put off any investigation indefinitely because I am not sure exactly where to start or how to proceed, OR I can start somewhere (like within observation of my own thinking activity) and let the Spirit subtly guide me, through my own reasoning process, and see how the rest unfolds from there".

I don't know about how 'rare' these indelible events are, given the countless shared examples one can spend endless hours hearing and reading about. Who knows, maybe that too is accelerating now toward some critical mass. To be sure, it is fascinating to see how starting from two seemingly very different motivating factors, and I suppose cultural backgrounds, the same 'knowing' can be embraced. Such apparent beings do find a way to convey, however fleeting, or long, or meandering, or multifarious these incarnational expressions may be.