Anthroposophy for Dummies

[Güney27]

https://youtu.be/KceJq0GdM-Y
I wanted to draw attention to this video. The man in the video has a whole series of steiners book " An outline of Occult science".
His conclusion is somewhat critical (he's generally critical of Steiner throughout the video cycle).
In this video he mentions that Steiner misunderstood the nature of dreams. He takes as a comparison C.g jung who sees dreams as clues that should lead to individuation.
I ask myself whether individuation and initiation aren't almost the same thing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[AshvinP]

https://youtu.be/KceJq0GdM-Y
I wanted to draw attention to this video. The man in the video has a whole series of steiners book " An outline of Occult science".
His conclusion is somewhat critical (he's generally critical of Steiner throughout the video cycle).
In this video he mentions that Steiner misunderstood the nature of dreams. He takes as a comparison C.g jung who sees dreams as clues that should lead to individuation.
I ask myself whether individuation and initiation aren't almost the same thing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Guney,

I haven't watched this particular video series, but from what I have seen by John David Ebert previously, he was very positive and even admiring of Steiner's esoteric scientific ideas. So it's surprising to me that he would be so critical and not recognize the parallel between individuation and initiation, as you did. I would say it is practically the same concept. Tomberg discusses Jung's path of individuation to some extent in MoT. It is very much aligned with Steiner's outline of imaginative cognition in various places, as the synthesis of our living, heartfelt experience with the clarity and precision of our reasoning faculty that normally remains abstract and dry. Steiner, similar to Jung, also speaks extensively about dreams as embedding insights from the spiritual worlds if we can learn to discern their moral patterns. Anyone can read the passage below and judge for themselves. Individuation/Initiation is the birth of the free human individual as such, i.e. the human being who begins to inwardly know his/her essential spiritual "I"-nature.

The little child does not “work”—he plays. But how serious he is, i.e. concentrated, when he plays! His attention is still complete and undivided, whereas with he who approaches the kingdom of God it becomes again entire and undivided. And this is the Arcanum of intellectual geniality: the vision of the unity of beings and things through the immediate perception of their correspondences—through consciousness concentrated without effort. The Master did not want us to become puerile; what he wanted is that we attain the geniality of intelligence and heart which is analogous—not identical—to the attitude of the child, who carries only easy burdens and renders all his yokes light.

The Magician represents the man who has attained harmony and equilibrium between the spontaneity of the unconscious (in the sense given to it by C. G. Jung) and the deliberate action of the conscious (in the sense of “I” or ego consciousness). His state of consciousness is the synthesis of the conscious and the unconscious—of creative spontaneity and deliberately executed activity. It is the state of consciousness that the psychological school of C. G. Jung calls “individuation”, or “synthesis of the conscious and unconscious elements in the personality”, or “synthesis of the self” (C. G. Jung and C. Kerényi, Introduction to a Science of Mythology; trsl. R. F. C. Hull, London, 1951, p. 115). This synthesis renders possible concentration without effort and intellectual vision without effort, which are the practical and theoretical aspects of all fruitfulness in both practical and intellectual realms.

Friedrich Schiller seems to have had consciousness of this Arcanum when he advanced his doctrine of the synthesis between intellectual consciousness, imposing heavy burdens of duties and of rules, and the instinctive nature of man, in the Spieltrieb (the urge to play). The “true” and the “desired” must, according to him, find their synthesis in the “beautiful”, for it is only in the beautiful that the Spieltrieb renders the burden of the “true” or the “just” light and raises at the same time the darkness of instinctive forces to the level of light and consciousness (cf. Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man; trsl. E. M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby, Oxford, 1967, pp. 331-332, note). In other words, he who sees the beauty of that which he recognises as true cannot fail to love it—and in loving it the element of constraint in the duty prescribed by the true will disappear: duty becomes a delight. It is thus that “work” is transformed into “play” and concentration without effort becomes possible.

Anonymous . Meditations on the Tarot (p. 20). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[Güney27]

https://youtu.be/KceJq0GdM-Y
I wanted to draw attention to this video. The man in the video has a whole series of steiners book " An outline of Occult science".
His conclusion is somewhat critical (he's generally critical of Steiner throughout the video cycle).
In this video he mentions that Steiner misunderstood the nature of dreams. He takes as a comparison C.g jung who sees dreams as clues that should lead to individuation.
I ask myself whether individuation and initiation aren't almost the same thing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Guney,

I haven't watched this particular video series, but from what I have seen by John David Ebert previously, he was very positive and even admiring of Steiner's esoteric scientific ideas. So it's surprising to me that he would be so critical and not recognize the parallel between individuation and initiation, as you did. I would say it is practically the same concept. Tomberg discusses Jung's path of individuation to some extent in MoT. It is very much aligned with Steiner's outline of imaginative cognition in various places, as the synthesis of our living, heartfelt experience with the clarity and precision of our reasoning faculty that normally remains abstract and dry. Steiner, similar to Jung, also speaks extensively about dreams as embedding insights from the spiritual worlds if we can learn to discern their moral patterns. Anyone can read the passage below and judge for themselves. Individuation/Initiation is the birth of the free human individual as such, i.e. the human being who begins to inwardly know his/her essential spiritual "I"-nature.

The little child does not “work”—he plays. But how serious he is, i.e. concentrated, when he plays! His attention is still complete and undivided, whereas with he who approaches the kingdom of God it becomes again entire and undivided. And this is the Arcanum of intellectual geniality: the vision of the unity of beings and things through the immediate perception of their correspondences—through consciousness concentrated without effort. The Master did not want us to become puerile; what he wanted is that we attain the geniality of intelligence and heart which is analogous—not identical—to the attitude of the child, who carries only easy burdens and renders all his yokes light.

The Magician represents the man who has attained harmony and equilibrium between the spontaneity of the unconscious (in the sense given to it by C. G. Jung) and the deliberate action of the conscious (in the sense of “I” or ego consciousness). His state of consciousness is the synthesis of the conscious and the unconscious—of creative spontaneity and deliberately executed activity. It is the state of consciousness that the psychological school of C. G. Jung calls “individuation”, or “synthesis of the conscious and unconscious elements in the personality”, or “synthesis of the self” (C. G. Jung and C. Kerényi, Introduction to a Science of Mythology; trsl. R. F. C. Hull, London, 1951, p. 115). This synthesis renders possible concentration without effort and intellectual vision without effort, which are the practical and theoretical aspects of all fruitfulness in both practical and intellectual realms.

Friedrich Schiller seems to have had consciousness of this Arcanum when he advanced his doctrine of the synthesis between intellectual consciousness, imposing heavy burdens of duties and of rules, and the instinctive nature of man, in the Spieltrieb (the urge to play). The “true” and the “desired” must, according to him, find their synthesis in the “beautiful”, for it is only in the beautiful that the Spieltrieb renders the burden of the “true” or the “just” light and raises at the same time the darkness of instinctive forces to the level of light and consciousness (cf. Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man; trsl. E. M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby, Oxford, 1967, pp. 331-332, note). In other words, he who sees the beauty of that which he recognises as true cannot fail to love it—and in loving it the element of constraint in the duty prescribed by the true will disappear: duty becomes a delight. It is thus that “work” is transformed into “play” and concentration without effort becomes possible.

Anonymous . Meditations on the Tarot (p. 20). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Ashvin,

I'm sorry for this late reply.
My knowledge of Jung and Steiner is of course not complete (I have read far more from Steiner than from Jung), but with both I see a tendency to make the unconscious conscious, or to call sleep into the daytime consciousness.

Let's say someone wants to find out why they don't like summer but love winter (this example applies to me).
There is an opportunity to think about it, in the form of words from the inner voice that evoke memories that have a specific meaning for the original question. Another possibility would be to wait for these unconscious sympathies and antipathies to press into our everyday consciousness (or in dreams).
through thoughts, fears feelings......

There is also the active way to reach the subconscious trough active imagination, meditation and probably other means that help you with that.
Subconscious contents then begin to emerge as independent entities and speak through images (imagination).

Jung's collective subconscious is probably interpreted by many as the substrate of the brain, but to me it sounds more like the soul world.
Here the question arises whether Jung had imaginative knowledge and could perceive the soul world?
To what extent are initiation and induviduation the same if the methodology differs greatly?
With the quote from tomberg I could not gain any new knowledge about it.

[AshvinP]

https://youtu.be/KceJq0GdM-Y
I wanted to draw attention to this video. The man in the video has a whole series of steiners book " An outline of Occult science".
His conclusion is somewhat critical (he's generally critical of Steiner throughout the video cycle).
In this video he mentions that Steiner misunderstood the nature of dreams. He takes as a comparison C.g jung who sees dreams as clues that should lead to individuation.
I ask myself whether individuation and initiation aren't almost the same thing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Guney,

I haven't watched this particular video series, but from what I have seen by John David Ebert previously, he was very positive and even admiring of Steiner's esoteric scientific ideas. So it's surprising to me that he would be so critical and not recognize the parallel between individuation and initiation, as you did. I would say it is practically the same concept. Tomberg discusses Jung's path of individuation to some extent in MoT. It is very much aligned with Steiner's outline of imaginative cognition in various places, as the synthesis of our living, heartfelt experience with the clarity and precision of our reasoning faculty that normally remains abstract and dry. Steiner, similar to Jung, also speaks extensively about dreams as embedding insights from the spiritual worlds if we can learn to discern their moral patterns. Anyone can read the passage below and judge for themselves. Individuation/Initiation is the birth of the free human individual as such, i.e. the human being who begins to inwardly know his/her essential spiritual "I"-nature.

The little child does not “work”—he plays. But how serious he is, i.e. concentrated, when he plays! His attention is still complete and undivided, whereas with he who approaches the kingdom of God it becomes again entire and undivided. And this is the Arcanum of intellectual geniality: the vision of the unity of beings and things through the immediate perception of their correspondences—through consciousness concentrated without effort. The Master did not want us to become puerile; what he wanted is that we attain the geniality of intelligence and heart which is analogous—not identical—to the attitude of the child, who carries only easy burdens and renders all his yokes light.

The Magician represents the man who has attained harmony and equilibrium between the spontaneity of the unconscious (in the sense given to it by C. G. Jung) and the deliberate action of the conscious (in the sense of “I” or ego consciousness). His state of consciousness is the synthesis of the conscious and the unconscious—of creative spontaneity and deliberately executed activity. It is the state of consciousness that the psychological school of C. G. Jung calls “individuation”, or “synthesis of the conscious and unconscious elements in the personality”, or “synthesis of the self” (C. G. Jung and C. Kerényi, Introduction to a Science of Mythology; trsl. R. F. C. Hull, London, 1951, p. 115). This synthesis renders possible concentration without effort and intellectual vision without effort, which are the practical and theoretical aspects of all fruitfulness in both practical and intellectual realms.

Friedrich Schiller seems to have had consciousness of this Arcanum when he advanced his doctrine of the synthesis between intellectual consciousness, imposing heavy burdens of duties and of rules, and the instinctive nature of man, in the Spieltrieb (the urge to play). The “true” and the “desired” must, according to him, find their synthesis in the “beautiful”, for it is only in the beautiful that the Spieltrieb renders the burden of the “true” or the “just” light and raises at the same time the darkness of instinctive forces to the level of light and consciousness (cf. Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man; trsl. E. M. Wilkinson and L. A. Willoughby, Oxford, 1967, pp. 331-332, note). In other words, he who sees the beauty of that which he recognises as true cannot fail to love it—and in loving it the element of constraint in the duty prescribed by the true will disappear: duty becomes a delight. It is thus that “work” is transformed into “play” and concentration without effort becomes possible.

Anonymous . Meditations on the Tarot (p. 20). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Ashvin,

I'm sorry for this late reply.
My knowledge of Jung and Steiner is of course not complete (I have read far more from Steiner than from Jung), but with both I see a tendency to make the unconscious conscious, or to call sleep into the daytime consciousness.

Let's say someone wants to find out why they don't like summer but love winter (this example applies to me).
There is an opportunity to think about it, in the form of words from the inner voice that evoke memories that have a specific meaning for the original question. Another possibility would be to wait for these unconscious sympathies and antipathies to press into our everyday consciousness (or in dreams).
through thoughts, fears feelings......

There is also the active way to reach the subconscious trough active imagination, meditation and probably other means that help you with that.
Subconscious contents then begin to emerge as independent entities and speak through images (imagination).

Jung's collective subconscious is probably interpreted by many as the substrate of the brain, but to me it sounds more like the soul world.
Here the question arises whether Jung had imaginative knowledge and could perceive the soul world?
To what extent are initiation and induviduation the same if the methodology differs greatly?
With the quote from tomberg I could not gain any new knowledge about it.

Guney,

Here is a passage that speaks more directly to your question. Methodology can and will differ, but they can still lead into the shared spirit worlds that underlie both the subconscious (soul life of desires, feelings, passions, etc.) and the supraconscious (the life of thinking, concepts, ideas, ideals). Ultimately both Jung and Steiner were seeking to chart a course for modern humans into their communal future, which means into the essence of the "I". Jung called this essence the Self that is reached through individuation, at the relatively low resolution of intellect and perhaps imagination, and Steiner attained a higher resolution of the "I" essence as Manas, Life Spirit, Atma, that are experienced through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, respectively. Both of them recognized the human "I" essence as intimately bound up with the Mystery of Christ i.e. the incarnation, death, and resurrection. Or as St. Augustine put it, "God is more myself than I myself am."

Methods of individual inner development reveal another area where it is fruitful to hold both Jung and Steiner together without seeking resolution. Jung speaks of analysis as the only initiatory path available in the modern Western world. He either was unfamiliar with Steiner or scornfully chose not to acknowledge that Steiner's work is above all a path of individual inner development. The methods of Jung and Steiner seem at first unrelated. For Jung, the method is analysis of others (though one must have gone through analysis oneself). Then, within analysis, it is constant inner work with dreams, trying to get close to the images, feeling their living presence, amplifying the images through myths, and, most of all, engaging in the transference, where the real transformation occurs. For a few, there is the work of active imagination, which is the work of those initiated into the process of individuation.

Steiner's method is meditation, which focuses on developing the capacity of remaining in full control of consciousness, not allowing anything to enter consciousness that is not put there deliberately by the meditator. And what is supposed to be put there is a thought or an image of something unrelated to the sense world. One might, for example, meditate on the Rose Cross, which does not exist in the sensory world. After holding this in consciousness for a while, letting nothing else enter, the content focused on is erased, creating an empty consciousness. Then one waits, as the consciousness does not remain empty. An image, a thought, an insight enters, a response from the spiritual worlds.

Steiner recommends a host of other exercises, such as the backward review of the day; exercises for controlling thought, feeling, and will; and special meditative practices for developing the capacity to experience karma. Steiner's recommendations for each area he worked in—such as medicine, agriculture, and education—also include particular meditative exercises.

A primary difference between these two methods is that Jung's meditative work takes place primarily in the presence of another person, the therapist, while Steiner's takes place in private. In Anthroposophy, group meditative work has been discouraged and even disparaged.

In looking at the methods of Jung and Steiner, what is most important is to look at the capacities that are being developed, not the way the meditations are structured. Steiner is actually very clear about this. For example, in such practices as the Rose Cross meditation described above, it is the force of building up the thought and the force it takes to erase it that is central. Here it is as if the soul is a muscle that is being exercised to build up its strength. This makes it possible for the practitioner to be in soul in a conscious way.

For Jung, if we look at his methods closely, what is most essential is the relation between the individual and the therapist. This is where the strength to go on with analysis, dream work, and active imagination is centered. Much, of course, comes from working the material, but the soul transformation has to do with the transference. And transference is a name for the capacity to feel the autonomous presence of love without acting it out, without reducing it to something personal.

There is actually an element of something like transference in the methods of Steiner. This element is Steiner's insistence that all meditations be done with a strong sense of reverence. Here a relationship of love is established with an as-yet-unknown other. It is, I think, going in the wrong direction to say that Steiner's mediations are solitary while Jung's are communal, though that is what strikes one most at first. If we hold both of these methods together, we come to the method of spiritual psychology. Spiritual psychology values group meditative work, recognizing, mainly from Jung, that the element of feeling is as important as the element of thought in meditative work. At the same time, following Steiner's lead, spiritual psychology refuses to literalize therapy but sees individual meditative work as inherently therapeutic. It is perfectly possible to do individual meditative work in a group context. Here the exercises are like those proposed by Steiner, so that building up inner strength of soul is what is most important. The results of the exercises are discussed in the group, which develops the feeling dimension of the soul, and also serves as a way of doing soul research together. The method of spiritual psychology is a new form of therapeutic work that takes therapy away from concentration on the personal, which easily becomes ego-centered, and yet strengthens the soul and spirit forces that are, in any case, central to any therapeutic healing.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (pp. 23-25). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

[Federica]

https://youtu.be/KceJq0GdM-Y
I wanted to draw attention to this video. The man in the video has a whole series of steiners book " An outline of Occult science".
His conclusion is somewhat critical (he's generally critical of Steiner throughout the video cycle).
In this video he mentions that Steiner misunderstood the nature of dreams. He takes as a comparison C.g jung who sees dreams as clues that should lead to individuation.
I ask myself whether individuation and initiation aren't almost the same thing.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Starting the video, I kind of liked the guy's no-nonsense demeanor, until second 00:52, when he says "I have actually seen a person's etheric body after taking psilocybin mushrooms". Right, end of video for my part. I'm tired of all these spiritual shortcutters, who "really want to see things", so they buy themselves 'spiritual' visions to be amazed by, which they pay for by selling off their own bodies.

[Federica]

Guney,

Here is a passage that speaks more directly to your question. Methodology can and will differ, but they can still lead into the shared spirit worlds that underlie both the subconscious (soul life of desires, feelings, passions, etc.) and the supraconscious (the life of thinking, concepts, ideas, ideals). Ultimately both Jung and Steiner were seeking to chart a course for modern humans into their communal future, which means into the essence of the "I". Jung called this essence the Self that is reached through individuation, at the relatively low resolution of intellect and perhaps imagination, and Steiner attained a higher resolution of the "I" essence as Manas, Life Spirit, Atma, that are experienced through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, respectively. Both of them recognized the human "I" essence as intimately bound up with the Mystery of Christ i.e. the incarnation, death, and resurrection. Or as St. Augustine put it, "God is more myself than I myself am."

Methods of individual inner development reveal another area where it is fruitful to hold both Jung and Steiner together without seeking resolution. Jung speaks of analysis as the only initiatory path available in the modern Western world. He either was unfamiliar with Steiner or scornfully chose not to acknowledge that Steiner's work is above all a path of individual inner development. The methods of Jung and Steiner seem at first unrelated. For Jung, the method is analysis of others (though one must have gone through analysis oneself). Then, within analysis, it is constant inner work with dreams, trying to get close to the images, feeling their living presence, amplifying the images through myths, and, most of all, engaging in the transference, where the real transformation occurs. For a few, there is the work of active imagination, which is the work of those initiated into the process of individuation.

Steiner's method is meditation, which focuses on developing the capacity of remaining in full control of consciousness, not allowing anything to enter consciousness that is not put there deliberately by the meditator. And what is supposed to be put there is a thought or an image of something unrelated to the sense world. One might, for example, meditate on the Rose Cross, which does not exist in the sensory world. After holding this in consciousness for a while, letting nothing else enter, the content focused on is erased, creating an empty consciousness. Then one waits, as the consciousness does not remain empty. An image, a thought, an insight enters, a response from the spiritual worlds.

Steiner recommends a host of other exercises, such as the backward review of the day; exercises for controlling thought, feeling, and will; and special meditative practices for developing the capacity to experience karma. Steiner's recommendations for each area he worked in—such as medicine, agriculture, and education—also include particular meditative exercises.

A primary difference between these two methods is that Jung's meditative work takes place primarily in the presence of another person, the therapist, while Steiner's takes place in private. In Anthroposophy, group meditative work has been discouraged and even disparaged.

In looking at the methods of Jung and Steiner, what is most important is to look at the capacities that are being developed, not the way the meditations are structured. Steiner is actually very clear about this. For example, in such practices as the Rose Cross meditation described above, it is the force of building up the thought and the force it takes to erase it that is central. Here it is as if the soul is a muscle that is being exercised to build up its strength. This makes it possible for the practitioner to be in soul in a conscious way.

For Jung, if we look at his methods closely, what is most essential is the relation between the individual and the therapist. This is where the strength to go on with analysis, dream work, and active imagination is centered. Much, of course, comes from working the material, but the soul transformation has to do with the transference. And transference is a name for the capacity to feel the autonomous presence of love without acting it out, without reducing it to something personal.

There is actually an element of something like transference in the methods of Steiner. This element is Steiner's insistence that all meditations be done with a strong sense of reverence. Here a relationship of love is established with an as-yet-unknown other. It is, I think, going in the wrong direction to say that Steiner's mediations are solitary while Jung's are communal, though that is what strikes one most at first. If we hold both of these methods together, we come to the method of spiritual psychology. Spiritual psychology values group meditative work, recognizing, mainly from Jung, that the element of feeling is as important as the element of thought in meditative work. At the same time, following Steiner's lead, spiritual psychology refuses to literalize therapy but sees individual meditative work as inherently therapeutic. It is perfectly possible to do individual meditative work in a group context. Here the exercises are like those proposed by Steiner, so that building up inner strength of soul is what is most important. The results of the exercises are discussed in the group, which develops the feeling dimension of the soul, and also serves as a way of doing soul research together. The method of spiritual psychology is a new form of therapeutic work that takes therapy away from concentration on the personal, which easily becomes ego-centered, and yet strengthens the soul and spirit forces that are, in any case, central to any therapeutic healing.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (pp. 23-25). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

Wehr's conclusions on Steiner and Jung appear arbitrary in the light of the letter Jung wrote to Frau Patzelt in 1935. He says:

- "I have found nothing in them [RS books] that is of the slightest use to me";

- "I am not interested at all in what can be speculated about experience without any proof"; and, icing on the cake:

- "So long as Steiner is or was not able to understand the Hittite inscriptions yet understood the language of Atlantis which nobody knows existed, there is no reason to get excited about anything that Herr Steiner has said".

I don't know how Tomberg speaks of Jung, however this letter reminds me of what you said here about Jung and others being very unfamiliar with vertical thinking and higher cognition.

[Güney27]

Guney,

I haven't watched this particular video series, but from what I have seen by John David Ebert previously, he was very positive and even admiring of Steiner's esoteric scientific ideas. So it's surprising to me that he would be so critical and not recognize the parallel between individuation and initiation, as you did. I would say it is practically the same concept. Tomberg discusses Jung's path of individuation to some extent in MoT. It is very much aligned with Steiner's outline of imaginative cognition in various places, as the synthesis of our living, heartfelt experience with the clarity and precision of our reasoning faculty that normally remains abstract and dry. Steiner, similar to Jung, also speaks extensively about dreams as embedding insights from the spiritual worlds if we can learn to discern their moral patterns. Anyone can read the passage below and judge for themselves. Individuation/Initiation is the birth of the free human individual as such, i.e. the human being who begins to inwardly know his/her essential spiritual "I"-nature.

Ashvin,

I'm sorry for this late reply.
My knowledge of Jung and Steiner is of course not complete (I have read far more from Steiner than from Jung), but with both I see a tendency to make the unconscious conscious, or to call sleep into the daytime consciousness.

Let's say someone wants to find out why they don't like summer but love winter (this example applies to me).
There is an opportunity to think about it, in the form of words from the inner voice that evoke memories that have a specific meaning for the original question. Another possibility would be to wait for these unconscious sympathies and antipathies to press into our everyday consciousness (or in dreams).
through thoughts, fears feelings......

There is also the active way to reach the subconscious trough active imagination, meditation and probably other means that help you with that.
Subconscious contents then begin to emerge as independent entities and speak through images (imagination).

Jung's collective subconscious is probably interpreted by many as the substrate of the brain, but to me it sounds more like the soul world.
Here the question arises whether Jung had imaginative knowledge and could perceive the soul world?
To what extent are initiation and induviduation the same if the methodology differs greatly?
With the quote from tomberg I could not gain any new knowledge about it.

Guney,

Here is a passage that speaks more directly to your question. Methodology can and will differ, but they can still lead into the shared spirit worlds that underlie both the subconscious (soul life of desires, feelings, passions, etc.) and the supraconscious (the life of thinking, concepts, ideas, ideals). Ultimately both Jung and Steiner were seeking to chart a course for modern humans into their communal future, which means into the essence of the "I". Jung called this essence the Self that is reached through individuation, at the relatively low resolution of intellect and perhaps imagination, and Steiner attained a higher resolution of the "I" essence as Manas, Life Spirit, Atma, that are experienced through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, respectively. Both of them recognized the human "I" essence as intimately bound up with the Mystery of Christ i.e. the incarnation, death, and resurrection. Or as St. Augustine put it, "God is more myself than I myself am."

Methods of individual inner development reveal another area where it is fruitful to hold both Jung and Steiner together without seeking resolution. Jung speaks of analysis as the only initiatory path available in the modern Western world. He either was unfamiliar with Steiner or scornfully chose not to acknowledge that Steiner's work is above all a path of individual inner development. The methods of Jung and Steiner seem at first unrelated. For Jung, the method is analysis of others (though one must have gone through analysis oneself). Then, within analysis, it is constant inner work with dreams, trying to get close to the images, feeling their living presence, amplifying the images through myths, and, most of all, engaging in the transference, where the real transformation occurs. For a few, there is the work of active imagination, which is the work of those initiated into the process of individuation.

Steiner's method is meditation, which focuses on developing the capacity of remaining in full control of consciousness, not allowing anything to enter consciousness that is not put there deliberately by the meditator. And what is supposed to be put there is a thought or an image of something unrelated to the sense world. One might, for example, meditate on the Rose Cross, which does not exist in the sensory world. After holding this in consciousness for a while, letting nothing else enter, the content focused on is erased, creating an empty consciousness. Then one waits, as the consciousness does not remain empty. An image, a thought, an insight enters, a response from the spiritual worlds.

Steiner recommends a host of other exercises, such as the backward review of the day; exercises for controlling thought, feeling, and will; and special meditative practices for developing the capacity to experience karma. Steiner's recommendations for each area he worked in—such as medicine, agriculture, and education—also include particular meditative exercises.

A primary difference between these two methods is that Jung's meditative work takes place primarily in the presence of another person, the therapist, while Steiner's takes place in private. In Anthroposophy, group meditative work has been discouraged and even disparaged.

In looking at the methods of Jung and Steiner, what is most important is to look at the capacities that are being developed, not the way the meditations are structured. Steiner is actually very clear about this. For example, in such practices as the Rose Cross meditation described above, it is the force of building up the thought and the force it takes to erase it that is central. Here it is as if the soul is a muscle that is being exercised to build up its strength. This makes it possible for the practitioner to be in soul in a conscious way.

For Jung, if we look at his methods closely, what is most essential is the relation between the individual and the therapist. This is where the strength to go on with analysis, dream work, and active imagination is centered. Much, of course, comes from working the material, but the soul transformation has to do with the transference. And transference is a name for the capacity to feel the autonomous presence of love without acting it out, without reducing it to something personal.

There is actually an element of something like transference in the methods of Steiner. This element is Steiner's insistence that all meditations be done with a strong sense of reverence. Here a relationship of love is established with an as-yet-unknown other. It is, I think, going in the wrong direction to say that Steiner's mediations are solitary while Jung's are communal, though that is what strikes one most at first. If we hold both of these methods together, we come to the method of spiritual psychology. Spiritual psychology values group meditative work, recognizing, mainly from Jung, that the element of feeling is as important as the element of thought in meditative work. At the same time, following Steiner's lead, spiritual psychology refuses to literalize therapy but sees individual meditative work as inherently therapeutic. It is perfectly possible to do individual meditative work in a group context. Here the exercises are like those proposed by Steiner, so that building up inner strength of soul is what is most important. The results of the exercises are discussed in the group, which develops the feeling dimension of the soul, and also serves as a way of doing soul research together. The method of spiritual psychology is a new form of therapeutic work that takes therapy away from concentration on the personal, which easily becomes ego-centered, and yet strengthens the soul and spirit forces that are, in any case, central to any therapeutic healing.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (pp. 23-25). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

Ashvin,
Are not manas buddi and atma the transformed bodies (etheric, astral and physical) through the work of the "I"?
Would it be correct to divide the "I" into three parts (the three soul members), or does the I reside in these soul members?

Jung's technique of active imagination provides awareness in the realm of dreams. In which area would this world, which one enters through active imagination, fall in Steiner's model?
Are the beings and images that appear in the subconscious elementary beings and if so, do they also live in the etheric realm?

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

I'm sorry for this late reply.
My knowledge of Jung and Steiner is of course not complete (I have read far more from Steiner than from Jung), but with both I see a tendency to make the unconscious conscious, or to call sleep into the daytime consciousness.

Let's say someone wants to find out why they don't like summer but love winter (this example applies to me).
There is an opportunity to think about it, in the form of words from the inner voice that evoke memories that have a specific meaning for the original question. Another possibility would be to wait for these unconscious sympathies and antipathies to press into our everyday consciousness (or in dreams).
through thoughts, fears feelings......

There is also the active way to reach the subconscious trough active imagination, meditation and probably other means that help you with that.
Subconscious contents then begin to emerge as independent entities and speak through images (imagination).

Jung's collective subconscious is probably interpreted by many as the substrate of the brain, but to me it sounds more like the soul world.
Here the question arises whether Jung had imaginative knowledge and could perceive the soul world?
To what extent are initiation and induviduation the same if the methodology differs greatly?
With the quote from tomberg I could not gain any new knowledge about it.

Guney,

Here is a passage that speaks more directly to your question. Methodology can and will differ, but they can still lead into the shared spirit worlds that underlie both the subconscious (soul life of desires, feelings, passions, etc.) and the supraconscious (the life of thinking, concepts, ideas, ideals). Ultimately both Jung and Steiner were seeking to chart a course for modern humans into their communal future, which means into the essence of the "I". Jung called this essence the Self that is reached through individuation, at the relatively low resolution of intellect and perhaps imagination, and Steiner attained a higher resolution of the "I" essence as Manas, Life Spirit, Atma, that are experienced through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, respectively. Both of them recognized the human "I" essence as intimately bound up with the Mystery of Christ i.e. the incarnation, death, and resurrection. Or as St. Augustine put it, "God is more myself than I myself am."

Methods of individual inner development reveal another area where it is fruitful to hold both Jung and Steiner together without seeking resolution. Jung speaks of analysis as the only initiatory path available in the modern Western world. He either was unfamiliar with Steiner or scornfully chose not to acknowledge that Steiner's work is above all a path of individual inner development. The methods of Jung and Steiner seem at first unrelated. For Jung, the method is analysis of others (though one must have gone through analysis oneself). Then, within analysis, it is constant inner work with dreams, trying to get close to the images, feeling their living presence, amplifying the images through myths, and, most of all, engaging in the transference, where the real transformation occurs. For a few, there is the work of active imagination, which is the work of those initiated into the process of individuation.

Steiner's method is meditation, which focuses on developing the capacity of remaining in full control of consciousness, not allowing anything to enter consciousness that is not put there deliberately by the meditator. And what is supposed to be put there is a thought or an image of something unrelated to the sense world. One might, for example, meditate on the Rose Cross, which does not exist in the sensory world. After holding this in consciousness for a while, letting nothing else enter, the content focused on is erased, creating an empty consciousness. Then one waits, as the consciousness does not remain empty. An image, a thought, an insight enters, a response from the spiritual worlds.

Steiner recommends a host of other exercises, such as the backward review of the day; exercises for controlling thought, feeling, and will; and special meditative practices for developing the capacity to experience karma. Steiner's recommendations for each area he worked in—such as medicine, agriculture, and education—also include particular meditative exercises.

A primary difference between these two methods is that Jung's meditative work takes place primarily in the presence of another person, the therapist, while Steiner's takes place in private. In Anthroposophy, group meditative work has been discouraged and even disparaged.

In looking at the methods of Jung and Steiner, what is most important is to look at the capacities that are being developed, not the way the meditations are structured. Steiner is actually very clear about this. For example, in such practices as the Rose Cross meditation described above, it is the force of building up the thought and the force it takes to erase it that is central. Here it is as if the soul is a muscle that is being exercised to build up its strength. This makes it possible for the practitioner to be in soul in a conscious way.

For Jung, if we look at his methods closely, what is most essential is the relation between the individual and the therapist. This is where the strength to go on with analysis, dream work, and active imagination is centered. Much, of course, comes from working the material, but the soul transformation has to do with the transference. And transference is a name for the capacity to feel the autonomous presence of love without acting it out, without reducing it to something personal.

There is actually an element of something like transference in the methods of Steiner. This element is Steiner's insistence that all meditations be done with a strong sense of reverence. Here a relationship of love is established with an as-yet-unknown other. It is, I think, going in the wrong direction to say that Steiner's mediations are solitary while Jung's are communal, though that is what strikes one most at first. If we hold both of these methods together, we come to the method of spiritual psychology. Spiritual psychology values group meditative work, recognizing, mainly from Jung, that the element of feeling is as important as the element of thought in meditative work. At the same time, following Steiner's lead, spiritual psychology refuses to literalize therapy but sees individual meditative work as inherently therapeutic. It is perfectly possible to do individual meditative work in a group context. Here the exercises are like those proposed by Steiner, so that building up inner strength of soul is what is most important. The results of the exercises are discussed in the group, which develops the feeling dimension of the soul, and also serves as a way of doing soul research together. The method of spiritual psychology is a new form of therapeutic work that takes therapy away from concentration on the personal, which easily becomes ego-centered, and yet strengthens the soul and spirit forces that are, in any case, central to any therapeutic healing.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (pp. 23-25). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

Ashvin,
Are not manas buddi and atma the transformed bodies (etheric, astral and physical) through the work of the "I"?
Would it be correct to divide the "I" into three parts (the three soul members), or does the I reside in these soul members?

Jung's technique of active imagination provides awareness in the realm of dreams. In which area would this world, which one enters through active imagination, fall in Steiner's model?
Are the beings and images that appear in the subconscious elementary beings and if so, do they also live in the etheric realm?

Guney,

The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower. At the metaphysical level, there is nothing but the "I"-force. All bodily and soul forms are reflections and transformations of the "I". The formless I-force then makes use of these finished or almost finished forms, often many at the same time, to accomplish its purpose of inner moral perfection through cognitive awakening. Humans are now at the stage at which they have dimly awakened to the reality of their essential I-force and can progressively unveil its deeper layers. The deeper layers are experienced-understood as more and more transpersonal, encompassing broader spheres of beings and their activity. We could refer to this whole complex of organic relations within the I as the I-organism. This organism encompasses the Whole of existence from humanity through the higher hierarchies to the Godhead.

The manifest forms themselves should be understood as something like encrusted habits of spiritual activity. That includes the entire material world surrounding us and our dense body drawn from that world. It also includes the plant kingdom and our vital body and the animal kingdom and our lower astral body. These are habits developed over many millennia by the I-organism to accomplish past intents related to physical and cultural development. They were necessary habits to cultivate for that development but now they also work in opposition to our higher awakening of the I-organism, i.e. the spiritualization of the cultural (soul) and the physical (body). They are like archaeological and geological layers through which we must dig to recover their spiritual essence. The digging, in this case, comes first from steering our I-consciousness through the psyche, making inner sacrifices of the lower personality that has formed habitual attachments to the cultural and physical context. We still need to rely on the collective habitual forms of culture and nature for some time, however, we can begin spiritualizing (or purifying) our own localized soul forms right now. 

The inner nature of the dream world is what Steiner and other esotericists refer to as the astral world, which is the realm of psychic forces. When we are able to purify the lower psychic forces, develop imagination, and thereby awaken within the dream world, we are then participating within a higher level of the I-organism that is called Manas in Steiner's terminology. Manas is the transformed astral body Into its spiritual counterpart.  Now our "I"-force is no longer habituated to past conditions, but is consciously and creatively participating in the manifestation of future conditions in our own organism and that of humanity as a whole. We are then participating in the progressive redemption of human culture and the natural kingdoms. If we are also able to awaken during dreamless sleep and even deeper sleep, then we are working on transforming the etheric and physical bodies into Buddhi and Atma. Then we are creatively working on transforming the Earth as a whole. I think it's clear that Jung saw this general archetypal progression taking place and knew that the human soul structure is also a localized image of the Cosmic structure, i.e. that working on the former is also a means of comprehending the latter. However, Steiner fleshed out the details of this progression much further through rigorous esoteric training and attunement with the Christ impulse.

[AshvinP]

Wehr's conclusions on Steiner and Jung appear arbitrary in the light of the letter Jung wrote to Frau Patzelt in 1935. He says:

- "I have found nothing in them [RS books] that is of the slightest use to me";

- "I am not interested at all in what can be speculated about experience without any proof"; and, icing on the cake:

- "So long as Steiner is or was not able to understand the Hittite inscriptions yet understood the language of Atlantis which nobody knows existed, there is no reason to get excited about anything that Herr Steiner has said".

I don't know how Tomberg speaks of Jung, however this letter reminds me of what you said here about Jung and others being very unfamiliar with vertical thinking and higher cognition.

I actually quoted a passage from the intro by Sardello, whereas I should have quoted something from Wehr himself. He certainly did not intend to discount or downplay the differences between Jung and Steiner or force some equation of approach between them. It is a very nuanced and carefully considered book, focusing not only the content of their thought-systems but the whole set of circumstances of that pivotal time in spiritual evolution in which inner investigation became more rigorous and empirical and systematic. Here is a passage that addresses what you are pointing to in the above letter. I do think it's clear that Jung was not familiar enough with the experiential reality of intuitive thinking to recognize it as the source of Steiner's research and therefore he dismissed the latter as mostly speculative fantasy and then completely lost interest. That is another reason why I would say Jung self-awakened into some imaginative capacity, mostly from profound childhood experiences, but did not progress further to inspiration or intuition through any spiritual training. Nevertheless, in my view, our task should always be considered one of integrating what is essentially common within various systems and approaches rather than exacerbating their divisions, which has surely been taken care of by the Anthroposophists and depth psychologists of the 20th century.

Steiner and Jung never had any immediate exchange of ideas during their lifetime, although they were contemporaries for half a century (from 1875, Jung's birth year, to 1925, Steiner's death year), and lived in close proximity to each other. The Anthroposophist and the depth psychologist each speak a language that is by nature foreign to the representative of the other discipline; but aside from the technical differences in their fields, there are definitely other factors that reinforced their distance. Steiner mentioned psychoanalysis and analytic psychology in some of his lectures. He also occasionally spoke of Jung as a scientist, but never did so in the thorough and detailed manner that would have been desirable. This occurred at a time when Jung's psychology was just beginning to distinguish itself from Freud's older psychoanalysis and to come into its own. Jung on his part mentions Anthroposophy several times and refers to Steiner without showing any interest in him. One gets the impression that the circumspect depth psychologist Jung ignored the essence and significance of Anthroposophy. One can conclude this because Anthroposophy is mentioned on occasion in one breath, without any differentiation, with the Anglo-Indian Theosophy of H.P. Blavatsky or with Christian Science. This is surprising and unfortunate, especially since Jung outlived Steiner for three and a half decades, and could have had occasion to observe the activities of the Anthroposophical Society from nearby.

Wehr, Gerhard. Jung and Steiner (p. 38). SteinerBooks. Kindle Edition.

[Güney27]

Guney,

Here is a passage that speaks more directly to your question. Methodology can and will differ, but they can still lead into the shared spirit worlds that underlie both the subconscious (soul life of desires, feelings, passions, etc.) and the supraconscious (the life of thinking, concepts, ideas, ideals). Ultimately both Jung and Steiner were seeking to chart a course for modern humans into their communal future, which means into the essence of the "I". Jung called this essence the Self that is reached through individuation, at the relatively low resolution of intellect and perhaps imagination, and Steiner attained a higher resolution of the "I" essence as Manas, Life Spirit, Atma, that are experienced through imagination, inspiration, and intuition, respectively. Both of them recognized the human "I" essence as intimately bound up with the Mystery of Christ i.e. the incarnation, death, and resurrection. Or as St. Augustine put it, "God is more myself than I myself am."

Ashvin,
Are not manas buddi and atma the transformed bodies (etheric, astral and physical) through the work of the "I"?
Would it be correct to divide the "I" into three parts (the three soul members), or does the I reside in these soul members?

Jung's technique of active imagination provides awareness in the realm of dreams. In which area would this world, which one enters through active imagination, fall in Steiner's model?
Are the beings and images that appear in the subconscious elementary beings and if so, do they also live in the etheric realm?

Guney,

The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower. At the metaphysical level, there is nothing but the "I"-force. All bodily and soul forms are reflections and transformations of the "I". The formless I-force then makes use of these finished or almost finished forms, often many at the same time, to accomplish its purpose of inner moral perfection through cognitive awakening. Humans are now at the stage at which they have dimly awakened to the reality of their essential I-force and can progressively unveil its deeper layers. The deeper layers are experienced-understood as more and more transpersonal, encompassing broader spheres of beings and their activity. We could refer to this whole complex of organic relations within the I as the I-organism. This organism encompasses the Whole of existence from humanity through the higher hierarchies to the Godhead.

The manifest forms themselves should be understood as something like encrusted habits of spiritual activity. That includes the entire material world surrounding us and our dense body drawn from that world. It also includes the plant kingdom and our vital body and the animal kingdom and our lower astral body. These are habits developed over many millennia by the I-organism to accomplish past intents related to physical and cultural development. They were necessary habits to cultivate for that development but now they also work in opposition to our higher awakening of the I-organism, i.e. the spiritualization of the cultural (soul) and the physical (body). They are like archaeological and geological layers through which we must dig to recover their spiritual essence. The digging, in this case, comes first from steering our I-consciousness through the psyche, making inner sacrifices of the lower personality that has formed habitual attachments to the cultural and physical context. We still need to rely on the collective habitual forms of culture and nature for some time, however, we can begin spiritualizing (or purifying) our own localized soul forms right now. 

The inner nature of the dream world is what Steiner and other esotericists refer to as the astral world, which is the realm of psychic forces. When we are able to purify the lower psychic forces, develop imagination, and thereby awaken within the dream world, we are then participating within a higher level of the I-organism that is called Manas in Steiner's terminology. Manas is the transformed astral body Into its spiritual counterpart.  Now our "I"-force is no longer habituated to past conditions, but is consciously and creatively participating in the manifestation of future conditions in our own organism and that of humanity as a whole. We are then participating in the progressive redemption of human culture and the natural kingdoms. If we are also able to awaken during dreamless sleep and even deeper sleep, then we are working on transforming the etheric and physical bodies into Buddhi and Atma. Then we are creatively working on transforming the Earth as a whole. I think it's clear that Jung saw this general archetypal progression taking place and knew that the human soul structure is also a localized image of the Cosmic structure, i.e. that working on the former is also a means of comprehending the latter. However, Steiner fleshed out the details of this progression much further through rigorous esoteric training and attunement with the Christ impulse.

This is confusing.
In Steiner's Outline of Occult Science, Steiner describes that our ego is supposed to work on our lower members. Doesn't that imply that the members of our being are separate but work together in harmony?
You say, "The way I like to think about it is that the "I" is a formless force that is not identical to any bodily or soul forms but is responsible for weaving all of them through loving, cognitive willpower." That completely messes up my understanding of esoteric human nature, could you explain in more detail what you mean?
The "I" is the reason that our perceptions and feelings of dreams... are related to ourselves and not simply perceptions that pointlessly pass by trough consciousness. Even memory shouldn't exist without our "I", because what should the memory refer to?
Daskalos says that our "I" expresses itself through our constitutional members.
Is that what you mean with your quoted statement?