'Eating Light' - A Discussion and Exercise for Imagination (Gurdjieff)

[AshvinP]

It sounds like Gurdjjeff was hanging onto some regressive occult practices. Certainly I think Ouspensky was correct to criticize the unnecessary crypticism. These higher realities should be communicated clearly, plainly, and precisely, amenable to our scientific cognition.

What does "clearly, plainly and precisely" actually mean? It means that when I read or hear something, I can relate it to my worldview. It makes sense to me. There may be new knowledge in what I hear, and that new knowledge will clarify or refine my worldview, but it's still relative to how I see the world.

But that's NOT what Steiner or Gurdjieff et al. are after! They are looking to completely radicalise or break our current worldview. You can't move to the vertical by travelling along the horizontal. You can't even understand that there is a vertical by moving along the horizontal.

That's what parables are for, and Zen koans. They are precisely to bypass the intellect, the current worldview, and force the listener to re-evaluate and make sense of something OUTSIDE their normal worldview - to breakthrough into the vertical.

Mike,

I think here is a major difference between Steiner and many other esoteric thinkers, such as Gurdjieff. The former shows us how to move vertically through the unfamiliar and unsuspected in a highly disciplined and scientific way, without completely forsaking our sensory experience and conceptual thinking. It is really a tremendous thing he was able to do in his writings and lectures. As you say, most people will resort to parables, poems, metaphors, fantastical images, cryptic messages, etc. to 'bypass the intellect' (even though this is not actually done, but rather than intellect is obscured yet still interpreting all the spiritual knowledge consumed). Steiner revealed to humanity a different way through the intellect, through our scientific reasoning. And when one discovers the living reality of this way, it becomes very difficult to justify the old 'bypassing intellect' ways, which actually remain on the horizontal more than they care to admit. The horizontal is there for a reason - precisely to provide the spiritual tools needed for the vertical ascent - and if we bypass the horizontal, we are failing to take advantage of those tools. On the spiritual scientific path, we are discovering how all of modern science, in all its power and precision, can be expanded to encompass dynamics of soul and spirit, and thereby redeemed from the secular materialistic age. It can be and has been conveyed in a clear and precise manner, even if it's in terminology or style we are not familiar with at first.

Below is an elaboration on this topic. Although I started this thread to highlight how these spiritual ideas-realities are the common possession of humanity, we also need to confront the fact that not all paths to the higher worlds are created equal. This dualism of non-dualism, i.e. mysticism (including esotericism), which we have discussed with you before, is the quintessential example of that. There is a discontinuity introduced between thinking as we know it and knowledge of the higher worlds, i.e. between philosophy/science and spirituality. It's pretty easy for people here to spot when a discontinuity is introduced between matter and mind, but when this same duality manifests in the form of a discontinuity between science and spirituality, many people here have become practically blind to it.

It's quite possible, even likely, that World Karma provided for a spiritual thinker such as Gurdjieff to arise in Russia and express his ideas in the cryptic, tragi-comic, unscientific or semi-scientific way. And it's likewise possible that souls of that region could find great utility in such an approach, based on their evolutionary development. But we also need to confront the reality of our roots here on this forum. Most would have come here through interest in BK, i.e. Western European philosophical thought, and to some extent scientific thought as well. This culture has its own evolutionary history and its own paths which will prove most fruitful for spiritual growth. The fact is that we have our modern roots in rigorous, precise thinking. So then an inner contradiction arises between who we are - philosophical and scientific thinkers - and what we seek - knowledge of our soul and spirit.

This is the birth of modern dualism in the West, first as a living idea, which is then embedded into modern mysticism and metaphysical theories, including analytic idealism. Much of the modern mysticism came through personalities like Schopenhauer, who was a Western thinker imposing modern Western intellectual thought onto ancient Eastern philosophy and spirituality. So the intellect postulates a dualism of thinking experience for itself, then comes along and says, "my intellect is trapped in this dualistic experience, which must mean thinking as such is incapable of experiencing the Unity of higher worlds and the only other option is some form of ancient mysticism and also waiting for the sweet release of death". Of course, it is the intellect itself which has made these conclusions, but for some reason this conclusion can be trusted, while everything else the intellect investigates about spirituality is declared untrustworthy.

That's where Steiner and PoF come in. Why is it that no spiritual thinkers before or after him have tried their hand at writing something similar or even imitating what he wrote after the fact? The only reasonable conclusion is that these people couldn't grasp the core ideas and therefore felt they were unimportant, not 'revolutionary' enough. True, it doesn't throw a 'revolution' in our faces with cryptic parables and what not, but it revolutionizes the intellectual thinking experience itself, when understood properly. PoF gives us an interactive experience of our intellect lighting up, coming alive in the Spirit, as it begins to comprehend somewhat lofty and unfamiliar spiritual ideas. It lays waste to the limits to spiritual knowledge which the intellect has postulated for itself, because the intellect experiences itself transcending those so-called limits in real-time. At the esoteric level, this reflects the method of the Rosicrucian stream. The intellect will always have a difficult time suspecting this new, re-vivified life of its own thinking until it actually endeavors to experience it and trusts that it can be accomplished.

The Rosicrucian Order was started particularly for those whose high degree of intellectual development caused them to repudiate the heart. Intellect imperiously demands a logical explanation of everything--the world mystery, the questions of life and death. The reasons for and the modus operandi of existence were not explained by the priestly injunction "not to seek to know the mysteries of God."

To any man or woman who is blest, or otherwise, with such an inquiring mind it is of paramount importance that they shall receive all the information they crave, so that when the head is stilled, the heart may speak. Intellectual knowledge is but a means to an end, not the end itself. Therefore, the Rosicrucian purposes first of all to satisfy the aspirant for knowledge that everything in the universe is reasonable, thus winning over the rebellious intellect. When it has ceased to criticize and is ready to accept provisionally, as probably true, statements which cannot be immediately verified, then, and not until then, will esoteric training be effective in developing the higher faculties whereby man passes from faith to first-hand knowledge. Yet, even then it will be found that, as the pupil progresses in first-hand knowledge and becomes able to investigate for himself, there are always truths ahead of him that he knows to be truths, but which he is not yet advanced sufficiently to investigate.

The pupil will do well to remember that nothing that is not logical can exist in the universe and that logic is the surest guide in all the Worlds, but he must not forget that his faculties are limited and that more than his own powers of logical reasoning may be needed to solve a given problem, although it may, nevertheless, be susceptible of full explanation, but by lines of reasoning which are beyond the capacity of the pupil at that stage of his development.

Heindel , Max. The Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception (Illustrated) (pp. 424-425). Kindle Edition.

[mikekatz]

Hi Ashvin
Thanks again for your time on this topic. I feel bad, you really don't need to work so hard at it!

In what follows I'm speaking purely about myself and how I experience things. You may not agree or experience the same, so please don't take offence.

I spent almost 50 years living simultaneously in dual systems - materialism and, for want of a better word, non-materialism. Sometimes the one made sense, sometimes the other. When I say "made sense", I mean that when I thought the one was true, I could not understand how I could ever even contemplate that the other view had any value.

With advances in physics, and with Bernardo's help in "Why Materialism is Baloney", I finally put the nail in the coffin of materialism. I can never live that view again.

However, I can still put myself in diehard materialism mode, as an outsider so to speak, so I can understand how materialists in general think. And from this, I can tell you, that no amount of talking about idealism, Advaita, Steiner, or anything else, is going to allow a materialist to see any value. If you are living an existential system that firmly and definitively has a horizontal view of reality, then you cannot even conceive of a vertical. Just as we cannot sense the earth's magnetic field, but some animals can.

I myself, in material mode, even though I was meditating and practicing mindfulness and was changing positively in many ways, spent time researching how the brain was creating all these "illusory" experiences. I denied my own experiences in materialist mode!

Did I use the intellect and thinking to understand that materialism is wrong? Yes!
Did I need to convince myself intellectually that there must be more than materialism? Yes!
Did the "head need to be stilled so that the heart may speak"? (Heindel) Yes!

But could my materialist mindset ever expand to accommodate my non-materialist experiences? No.

You seem to have a dim view of parables. I don't understand why (but you don't need to spend time telling me lol). But the parable of trying to put new wine into old bottles exactly expresses what I'm trying to convey here. Old bottles corrupt new wine. New wine needs new bottles. Once new wine goes into an old bottle, it too inevitably becomes old.

Krishnamurti was the one who showed me that the old cannot turn into the new. You have to leave the old behind completely, and only then can you experience the new.

Again, thanks for the time you spend with me. There's no need to respond. I'm not looking to change your mind, or to have mine changed, We're just having a conversation, and sharing our respective views.

[AshvinP]

Hi Ashvin
Thanks again for your time on this topic. I feel bad, you really don't need to work so hard at it!

In what follows I'm speaking purely about myself and how I experience things. You may not agree or experience the same, so please don't take offence.

I spent almost 50 years living simultaneously in dual systems - materialism and, for want of a better word, non-materialism. Sometimes the one made sense, sometimes the other. When I say "made sense", I mean that when I thought the one was true, I could not understand how I could ever even contemplate that the other view had any value.

With advances in physics, and with Bernardo's help in "Why Materialism is Baloney", I finally put the nail in the coffin of materialism. I can never live that view again.

However, I can still put myself in diehard materialism mode, as an outsider so to speak, so I can understand how materialists in general think. And from this, I can tell you, that no amount of talking about idealism, Advaita, Steiner, or anything else, is going to allow a materialist to see any value. If you are living an existential system that firmly and definitively has a horizontal view of reality, then you cannot even conceive of a vertical. Just as we cannot sense the earth's magnetic field, but some animals can.

I myself, in material mode, even though I was meditating and practicing mindfulness and was changing positively in many ways, spent time researching how the brain was creating all these "illusory" experiences. I denied my own experiences in materialist mode!

Did I use the intellect and thinking to understand that materialism is wrong? Yes!
Did I need to convince myself intellectually that there must be more than materialism? Yes!
Did the "head need to be stilled so that the heart may speak"? (Heindel) Yes!

But could my materialist mindset ever expand to accommodate my non-materialist experiences? No.

You seem to have a dim view of parables. I don't understand why (but you don't need to spend time telling me lol). But the parable of trying to put new wine into old bottles exactly expresses what I'm trying to convey here. Old bottles corrupt new wine. New wine needs new bottles. Once new wine goes into an old bottle, it too inevitably becomes old.

Krishnamurti was the one who showed me that the old cannot turn into the new. You have to leave the old behind completely, and only then can you experience the new.

Mike,

As Federica also noted on the other thread, There is no perception/experience, including visionary spiritual ones, without the mediation of thinking. That is the phenomenology of PoF is so important to internalize. One simply can't properly evaluate the red thread of thinking which runs through all experience, physical and spiritual, unless one also becomes familiar with how their own thinking participates in their daily perception of the world and of their own inner experiences. You could also reference Cleric's posts on the psychedelic thread, which thoroughly explain the common trap of confusing spiritual sight for 'raw experience' of the spiritual forces themselves.

Just as you noticed the inner contradiction with the materialist outlook, isn't it possible your current outlook has another inner contradiction to be resolved through your thinking activity? We should appreciate how our imaginations, inspirations, and intuitions never prompt us to stop reasoning through experience, only our abstract intellect. You practically described how your thinking activity expanded your outlook beyond the confines of one-sided materialist experience, but then declared the opposite conclusion to what you just described. It is very convenient if the materialistic paradigm was the last one you needed to reason your way beyond, is it not?

Parables are great analogical tools which connect the physical with the spiritual, but what I am asking you to consider is your own parable-forming activity. What is it that makes it possible for us to construct or read parables and appreciate their spiritual value? This is yet another layer deeper than we have penetrated when we overcome materialistic thinking, which feels parables are simply subjective fictions we create for our own amusement. We have overcome, with our thinking activity, the inner contradiction between the deep existential meaning of these parables and their seeming 'subjectivity', but why do we assume there is nowhere left to go from there? Why can't we further investigate why we are able to connect the physical imagery of parables with deeper spiritual realities?

The old is always metamorphosing into the new - this is what we know as evolution. What can't be done is to linearly extrapolate what the new evolved forms will be from only considering the old with the intellect. No one is suggesting we do that - rather we are suggesting that we ourselves aer always participating in evolving the new from the old through the mediating link of our spiritual (thinking) activity - not the dead intellect, but the living thinking - and that we simply need to become more conscious of this participation. "A greater light, presence, and participation in the 'mental space' reveals a living world, populated by autonomous and/or semi-autonomous 'entities'. One participates in this world to the degree that one is conscious of it." We should simply ask ourselves whether all of culture, which has led up to these moments on the forum and these dialogues, has served any purpose in spiritual evolution or not?

Again, thanks for the time you spend with me. There's no need to respond. I'm not looking to change your mind, or to have mine changed, We're just having a conversation, and sharing our respective views.

This is most concerning. It's why I call these views the last phase of materialism - the absolute end of the road for all further advances towards harmonized understanding of the spiritual reality we share. People come to the point where they are so comfortable in your current level of development that they find zero existential value in further thought-out human dialogue. Conversations become ends-in-themselves, rather than a means to an end. Humanity cannot possibly advance at either the individual or collective level if most people feel this way. Everyone intuits this reality. What is it that tells us to ignore this intuition, to reflect it to death? It is our lower intellect! Most people have recognized materialism as a metaphysical theory is dying, almost dead, such as BK, Hoffman, and others. Steiner noticed this more than 100 years ago. He noticed it would metamorphose into something which leads to the same conclusion, devoid of the Spirit within, but is much more difficult to overcome, because it is felt to be the deepest possible truth attainable during life. This is what we really need to examine within ourselves and discern whether we have arbitrarily decided to cut off our thinking potential when we overcame the materialistic mindset with that very same thinking.  

But these days, people always have to outdo themselves. We have not yet reached the point where people would say they have gone far enough; no, they want to go still further and outdo themselves grandiosely. For example, there is a man who is furious about the very existence of philosophy and the many philosophers in the world who created philosophies. He rails at all philosophy. Now this man recently published a volley of abuse against philosophy and wanted to find an especially pithy phrase to vent his rage. I will read you his pronouncement so you can see what is thought in our time of philosophy, by which people hope to find the truth and which has achieved a great deal, as you will see from my forthcoming book: “We have no more philosophy than animals.”

In other words, he not only claims we are descended from animals, but goes on to demonstrate that even in our loftiest strivings, namely in philosophy, we have not yet advanced beyond the animals because we cannot know more than the animals know. He is very serious about this: “We have no more philosophy than animals, and only our frantic attempts to attain a philosophy and the final resignation to our ignorance distinguish us from the animals.” That is to say, knowing that we know as little as cattle is the only difference between us and the animals. This man makes short work of the whole history of philosophy by trying to prove that it is nothing but a series of desperate attempts by philosophers to rise above the simple truth that we know no more of the world than the animals.

Now you will probably ask who could possibly have such a distorted view of philosophy? I think it may interest you to know who is able to come up with such an incredible view of philosophy. As a matter of fact, the person in question is a professor of philosophy at the university in Czernowitz! Many years ago he wrote a book called The End of Philosophy and another one called The End of Thinking, and he just recently wrote The Tragicomedy of Wisdom, where you can find the sentences I quoted. This man fulfills the duties of his office as professor of philosophy at a university by convincing his attentive audience that human beings know no more than animals! His name is Richard Wahle, and he is a full professor of philosophy at the university in Czemowitz

[mikekatz]

Hi Ashvin
I replied to Frederica on the other thread, and it covers what I wanted to say here.
I wish you all the best.

[AshvinP]

Hi Ashvin
I replied to Frederica on the other thread, and it covers what I wanted to say here.
I wish you all the best.

Mike,

I read your post on the other thread. It seems you are hardly open to any feedback on your pattern of thinking at this point, but I will offer it one last time. In response to Federica, you once again used an illustration of evolving thinking, via scientific paradigm shifts, to reach the conclusion, "the thinking ego doesn't exist". So there is a clear inner contradiction which you still have not yet resolved.

(1) How we know ourselves in our inner world (thinking)

"Ashvin posted a thread on Gurdjieff's esoteric approach and it seems interlaced with Steiner's philosophy of thinking as spiritual activity. This should be differentiated and made clear, because it isn't objectively accurate."

Or

"The old cannot be extrapolated to the new, but must be discarded so that new wine can be put in new bottles and this means experiencing myself in our shared Consicousness. "

I.e. your thinking reaches firm conclusions about the nature of reality and your role in it and suggests to you various ways to deepen your understanding of it.

Vs.

(2) How we engage/express in the outer world

"It all boils down to advertising our various perspectives to others, not about reaching a shared understanding of the objective reality we are dealing with, because this will prove impossible through our illusory thinking ego."

You inwardly reached #1 through your logical reasoning, and you practically deny that same logical reasoning in #2. This is the glaring contradiction which continues to separate the inner from the outer.

Or let's briefly take the recent pandemic as an example.

(1) Illness is wrong and needs to be eliminated at all costs to society.

(2) Illness can help develop the human capacity to overcome through resiatance and evolve.

We see this #1 attitude directed towards phenomena of nature and culture across the board. Some portions of the population want to eliminate all of Western history because it was patriarchal, racist, unequal, intellectual, or just plain "wrong". This isn't only tangentially related to the mystical view which is antagonistic to the intellectual reasoning which became most pronounced through Western culture and its evolution. It is yet another example of the inner contradiction, but playing out at the cultural level. Of course there are many more examples.

Cleric has specifically written many posts on this forum about how we can make the paradigm shift needed to vertical spiritual activity without resigning ourselves to resting comfortable in 'consciousness', which, if we are honest with ourselves, does very little to advance spiritual evolution and redeem the suffering of humanity and Nature. You say the exercises aren't helpful, that there isn't instruction, feedback, etc. So why don't you report to us your experiences with the exercises, if you have tried them, and see if there can be further instruction and feedback?

If one simply has no interest in that, then they should be honest to themselves about it, instead of dressing it up as some sort of philosophical argument which 'proves' that our conceptual reasoning is useless in deepening vertical development. The latter simply ends all thoughtful conversations and, therefore, all possibility of truly shared understanding and development of higher consciousness which benefits the Whole. People don't show up to this forum and post on these topics because they really desire to let others know that they will be ceasing all posts soon. So, my suggestion is to maybe consider for a few quiet moments the inner contradictions that these things are all reflecting back to you.

[Federica]

As a curiosity for those interested in Gurdjieff (Mike?) there is a new video on the New thinking allowed channel on Youtube, titled Psychological Reflections on G. I. Gurdjieff (I haven't watched it):

[mikekatz]

Thanks Federica! From around 9:45 for around 10-15 minutes he discusses much of what I sent to you in my PM, and he expresses it very well. He even used the same phrase "an unexamined life is not worth living" lol.

Edit: I'm very fond of the New Thinking channel, there is a lot of value there.

Edit 2: Correction, start at 6:15

[Federica]

Thanks Federica! From around 9:45 for around 10-15 minutes he discusses much of what I sent to you in my PM, and he expresses it very well. He even used the same phrase "an unexamined life is not worth living" lol.

Edit: I'm very fond of the New Thinking channel, there is a lot of value there.

Edit 2: Correction, start at 6:15

My pleasure, Mike! I have listened to the interview now. I surely recognize your points. I have to say, though, the interviewee seems to interpret Gurdjieff’s wakeup call mainly in terms of developing a wide-range awareness of the peripheral sensory spectrum and in terms of body sensations / emotional responses / defense mechanisms. My summary understanding is that Gurdjeff, and you with him, refer to the necessity of waking up in a much more extensive sense.

Wrapping up such summary understanding of this figure, I am left under the impression that he touched upon some real and enlightening aspects of the nature of reality, and how we relate to it (or fail to relate). However, after reading a little about his methods and life, I am skeptical about the truly positive value of his contribution. What to think, for instance, of his ‘all-inclusive’ teaching methods, when you notice that according to Wikipedia, he had at least six children with six different pupils, or followers. Not to mention his deceptive business ventures, dubious relation to money, manipulating habits, and attitude to pupils in general. These are all big deterrents for me to explore his philosophy any further.

In general, do you think it is possible to separate the character from the teachings (old philosophical question)?

[mikekatz]

Thanks Federica! From around 9:45 for around 10-15 minutes he discusses much of what I sent to you in my PM, and he expresses it very well. He even used the same phrase "an unexamined life is not worth living" lol.

Edit: I'm very fond of the New Thinking channel, there is a lot of value there.

Edit 2: Correction, start at 6:15

My pleasure, Mike! I have listened to the interview now. I surely recognize your points. I have to say, though, the interviewee seems to interpret Gurdjieff’s wakeup call mainly in terms of developing a wide-range awareness of the peripheral sensory spectrum and in terms of body sensations / emotional responses / defense mechanisms. My summary understanding is that Gurdjeff, and you with him, refer to the necessity of waking up in a much more extensive sense.

Wrapping up such summary understanding of this figure, I am left under the impression that he touched upon some real and enlightening aspects of the nature of reality, and how we relate to it (or fail to relate). However, after reading a little about his methods and life, I am skeptical about the truly positive value of his contribution. What to think, for instance, of his ‘all-inclusive’ teaching methods, when you notice that according to Wikipedia, he had at least six children with six different pupils, or followers. I have to admit that his deceptive business ventures, dubious relation to money, manipulating habits, and attitude to pupils in general, are big deterrents for me to explore his philosophy any further.

In general, do you think it is possible to separate the character from the teachings (old philosophical question)?

First off, lol, would you set Steiner aside for the undoubtedly racist comments he made?

In the lectures, published as a book with the English title The Mission of Individual Souls, he writes ”The Black or Negro race is substantially determined by these childhood characteristics. If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or center where the formative forces of the Earth impress permanently on man the particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence and determine his racial character... If we continue northward and then turn in a westernly direction towards Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon man the characteristics of his adult life.”

I think motive is the issue here. Gurdjieff was very good at making money. He could have been a multimillionaire and lived a life of luxury. But he chose to try to impart what he had learned instead. This involved having fulltime pupils, sometimes a hundred or so. He was responsible for accommodating, feeding, and moving them around sometimes, even in the middle of wars. It's said that he once became a spy so that he could get papers to allow him to move his entourage between countries during wartime.

Gurdjieff maintained that we are all completely trapped in our ego. We need to be literally shocked out of it, and anything that got you out of the ego was good, even if it looked bad to the outside world. So he lost many people and was heavily criticized during his life and afterwards. Did he sometimes fail as a human being and do things out of personal lust and greed? Maybe, who knows?

There's a Zen story, I forget the details, where a master and his pupil undertake a journey. On the way, the master does some outrageous things. I think he knocks down part of a wall. The pupil is stunned, but the master refuses to explain. On the way back, the pupil sees how the things the master had done had benefitted everyone.

And there's the railway morality question. There are two tracks. On one, there is a person trapped on the track, and on the other there are five people trapped on the track. There is a train coming, and you have a switch to change tracks in front of you. if you don't throw the switch, five people die. If you do, one person dies and you have sent them personally to their death. What do you do?

Gurdjieff gave a talk once about what he called "the money question", and he was unapologetic about ripping people off sometimes. He did it to allow his group to continue existing and learning. There was no personal gain involved. Was he right? Is there such a thing as right when the train is coming?

So would I behave like Gurdjieff? No! Could I behave like him even if I saw the real need for it? I doubt it.

In Beelzebub's Tales to his Grandson, Gurdjieff often uses the phrase "conscious labors and intentional suffering" as a necessary activity to evolve. Conscious labours as in the hard work required to be constantly conscious (self aware), and intentional suffering as in doing something completely foreign to your ego, to help you break your false ego. He frequently required pupils and potential pupils to make herculean efforts, and most were not prepared to. He himself accomplished tasks that his pupils deemed impossible to achieve.

Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous is an incredibly detailed exposition of Gurdjieff's system, in Gurdjieff's own words. You cannot doubt his knowledge or his sincerity if you read it.

[AshvinP]

Thanks Federica! From around 9:45 for around 10-15 minutes he discusses much of what I sent to you in my PM, and he expresses it very well. He even used the same phrase "an unexamined life is not worth living" lol.

Edit: I'm very fond of the New Thinking channel, there is a lot of value there.

Edit 2: Correction, start at 6:15

My pleasure, Mike! I have listened to the interview now. I surely recognize your points. I have to say, though, the interviewee seems to interpret Gurdjieff’s wakeup call mainly in terms of developing a wide-range awareness of the peripheral sensory spectrum and in terms of body sensations / emotional responses / defense mechanisms. My summary understanding is that Gurdjeff, and you with him, refer to the necessity of waking up in a much more extensive sense.

Wrapping up such summary understanding of this figure, I am left under the impression that he touched upon some real and enlightening aspects of the nature of reality, and how we relate to it (or fail to relate). However, after reading a little about his methods and life, I am skeptical about the truly positive value of his contribution. What to think, for instance, of his ‘all-inclusive’ teaching methods, when you notice that according to Wikipedia, he had at least six children with six different pupils, or followers. I have to admit that his deceptive business ventures, dubious relation to money, manipulating habits, and attitude to pupils in general, are big deterrents for me to explore his philosophy any further.

In general, do you think it is possible to separate the character from the teachings (old philosophical question)?

First off, lol, would you set Steiner aside for the undoubtedly racist comments he made?

Regardless of whether we should 'set aside' teachings due to someone's personal inclinations or actions, which I am also reluctant on, and assume it depends on what exactly we are dealing with and how it relates to the teachings (we can always separate ideas from any individual personality, but not necessarily specific teachings on those ideas), let's not casually throw out accusations of racism just because that's the common understanding of people not too familiar with spiritual science.

I'm not sure if you are aware, Mike, but we have discussed all those supposedly 'racist' comments in some detail on this forum already. After some back and forth, the point of misunderstanding became clear - the people accusing 'racism' simply rejected spiritual evolution as a living reality. In other words, they held a physicalist, anti-spiritual understanding of the human being, projected that onto Steiner, and then accused their own subconsciously held views of "racism". Generally, what was ignored was the living reality (as opposed to dead metaphysical abstraction) of the soul-spirit which lives independently of its physical sheath, the reality of reincarnation, the reality of spiritual evolution gradually unfolding over aeons, and the reality of the impulse towards freedom from natural constraints. When all those realities are ignored, we are not talking about Steiner's views anymore, but only the projected views of the people making the accusations, fitted onto isolated quotes which, 100+ years ago, used cultural language that we find very distasteful today.