Meditation

[AshvinP]

The exercise is really a kind of prayer but with a more pictorial nature. It is based on the number seven and the colors.
...
Here, at least in my personal opinion, the seven-foldness and the colors shouldn’t be directly mapped to our spiritual scientific concepts. I see it more as means to instill certain structure to our prayer. Such spheres of expanding consciousness and the colors of the spectrum, of course, have their archetypal meaning, but I think that the mapping would have to be slightly different if it has to be aligned with the hierarchies. Instead, the exercise is tied with our very human experience, which is also why it feels so accessible and powerful.

Thank you, Cleric!

This is timely for me because I have been focusing on how to bring more structure into my prayer life. I have always been intimidated by the prospect of memorizing a bunch of different prayers. For ex. I had the idea to start praying the Rosary, but I quickly gave up because it felt like too much to memorize, and more subconsciously I was probably feeling it will 'take too much time'. Now I am starting to realize that when we are able to resonate with the archetypal structure of certain prayers, this makes them much more accessible.

What you have shared is a prime example and a great place to start. I tried it this morning and didn't even need to reference the original post to move through the spheres of beings in a very intimate way. So I definitely sense the accessibility and also the power you mention. It was also relatively easy to maintain a holistic sense of the spheres. Now I also look forward to incorporating the visualizations! I am sure others can benefit greatly from incorporating this archetypally structured prayer as well.

PS - I may start including an 'infrared' sphere for the animal kingdom and my pet cat Actually, on a serious note, addressing the lower kingdoms and elemental beings as part of our ideals in the first personal sphere - to raise them up to their higher potential - should be helpful.

[Cleric K]

PS - I may start including an 'infrared' sphere for the animal kingdom and my pet cat Actually, on a serious note, addressing the lower kingdoms and elemental beings as part of our ideals in the first personal sphere - to raise them up to their higher potential - should be helpful.

That’s a good idea. When I thought about it maybe it would be better that the pet is included in the second sphere. The idea is that we begin with the narrowest experience of our being. Here narrowest doesn’t necessarily mean egoistic. We may still hold the highest ideal, yet we start from within the confines of our “I”. To include our pet we still need to expand beyond ourselves. The next three spheres are all related to the soul body. All conflict on Earth proceeds from unconscious sympathies and antipathies. When we see things in this way, we arrive again at the fact that every step into the soul world is at the same time organization of its elemental mirror image in the soul body. For this reason we can address the world of animals also in these spheres.

The sphere of archetypal beings reflects in the World ether (life). And then we can conceive the final sphere has its reflection in the totality of the Cosmic foundations.

By the way, it is interesting that pets in many ways become different beings from what they would be in the wild. Steiner has explained (for example here) that the higher animals (especially apes) take too much from the group soul into the body and individualize it. This produces an ego-like elemental being (called salamander, fire elemental) which is left behind upon the death of the animal form. These ego-like beings are not yet advanced enough that they could continue their development through incarnations but remain in our spiritual environment and could have different effects. I couldn’t find the exact lecture but it was said that these ego-like beings develop to a greater extent especially in pets through their interaction with human beings. I’m not sure what the effects of these pet spirits could be upon humans but in the course of evolution we’ll surely have to help them find their way towards integration.

[AshvinP]

PS - I may start including an 'infrared' sphere for the animal kingdom and my pet cat Actually, on a serious note, addressing the lower kingdoms and elemental beings as part of our ideals in the first personal sphere - to raise them up to their higher potential - should be helpful.

That’s a good idea. When I thought about it maybe it would be better that the pet is included in the second sphere. The idea is that we begin with the narrowest experience of our being. Here narrowest doesn’t necessarily mean egoistic. We may still hold the highest ideal, yet we start from within the confines of our “I”. To include our pet we still need to expand beyond ourselves. The next three spheres are all related to the soul body. All conflict on Earth proceeds from unconscious sympathies and antipathies. When we see things in this way, we arrive again at the fact that every step into the soul world is at the same time organization of its elemental mirror image in the soul body. For this reason we can address the world of animals also in these spheres.

The sphere of archetypal beings reflects in the World ether (life). And then we can conceive the final sphere has its reflection in the totality of the Cosmic foundations.

By the way, it is interesting that pets in many ways become different beings from what they would be in the wild. Steiner has explained (for example here) that the higher animals (especially apes) take too much from the group soul into the body and individualize it. This produces an ego-like elemental being (called salamander, fire elemental) which is left behind upon the death of the animal form. These ego-like beings are not yet advanced enough that they could continue their development through incarnations but remain in our spiritual environment and could have different effects. I couldn’t find the exact lecture but it was said that these ego-like beings develop to a greater extent especially in pets through their interaction with human beings. I’m not sure what the effects of these pet spirits could be upon humans but in the course of evolution we’ll surely have to help them find their way towards integration.

Yes, that makes sense, and I thought the same thing after writing the last post. We could also reference the lower kingdoms in general in the sphere of the 3rd hierarchy since they are working on those kingdoms with departed souls (and of course corporeal humans also work on them in a more indirect way). It may also make sense to include the departed souls in the whole of humanity sphere.

I also vaguely remember the lecture you are referencing. It would be great to learn more about that topic. Sometimes I feel like my cat has ego-like qualities. She has a great range of vocal expressions, for ex., for different situations (she still doesn't engage my spiritual ideas though ). I don't have much in the way of experience with other cats to compare that to, however.

[Federica]

This may be the lecture you are referring to:

Now we must consider the following: — With the lion it is entirely as we have said, that every time a lion dies, the whole of what was sent out by the group-soul return to it again. It is not at all so, however, with the apes. When an ape dies the essential part does return to the group-soul, but a part does not; a part is severed from the group-soul. The ape detaches substance too strongly from the group-soul. There are species where the single animal tears something away from the group-soul which cannot return to it. With all the apes, fragments are detached in each case from the group-soul. It is the same with certain kinds of amphibians and birds; in the kangaroo, for example, something is kept back from the group-soul. Now everything in the warm-blooded animals that remains behind in this way becomes an elemental being of the kind we call a salamander.

[Federica]

This is not strictly related to the question about animal individuality, but searching the archive for notes on dogs and cats, I didn't find confirmation of their ego-like being (as I would surely like) but I found this:

Now let us compare the dog's organ of smell with that of the human being. The dog has a brain that is clearly made for smelling, a brain that becomes an organ of smell. In the human being the greater part of this “smell-brain” has been transformed into an “intelligence-brain.” We understand things; the dog doesn't understand things, he smells them. We understand them because at the place where the dog has his organ of smell, we have that organ transformed. Our organ of intelligence is a transformed organ of smell. In us there is only a tiny remnant left of this “smell-brain.” That is why our sense of smell is inferior to the dog's. And so you can imagine that when a dog runs over the fields, he finds everything terribly interesting; so many smells come to him that if he were able to describe it, he would say the world is all smell. If among dogs there were a thinker like Schopenhauer (see Note 15) [ ], he would write interesting books! Schopenhauer wrote a book called “The World as Will and Idea” — but he was a man and his organ of smell had become an organ of thinking. The dog could write a book called “The World as Will and Smell.” [ ]
In the dog's book there would be a great deal beyond the discernment of a human being, because while a human being forms an idea, a mental image of things, a dog smells them. And it is my private opinion that the dog's book — if the dog were a Schopenhauer — would actually be more interesting than the book that Schopenhauer himself wrote! So you see how it is. We live in a world that can be smelled, and other creatures — the dog, for instance — are much more acutely aware of this than we are.

In this lecture, Steiner must have been in a humoristic mood, since he also said:

Once I knew a man who had a terrible dread of the future. (see Note 17) He argued that in olden times man's senses were more delicate, more keen, just because he had less brain, that in the course of human evolution what had in earlier times belonged to the senses and enhanced their perception was metamorphosed into a clever brain. The man was afraid that this would go further, that more and more of the sensory brain would become thinking brain, so that finally human beings would be utterly incapacitated, going about with defective eyes and so forth. In olden times people went through life with good sight; now they need glasses. Their sense of smell is not nearly as keen as it was once. Their hands are becoming clumsy. And anything that becomes clumsy is bound to deteriorate. The man was afraid that everything would be transformed into brain and that the human head would get bigger and bigger and the legs smaller and smaller and all would atrophy. He thought quite seriously that human beings would someday be no more than round heads rolling around the world [ ]— and then what would happen? The man was completely, tragically in earnest. And his thought was perfectly correct. For if the human being does not find his way again to what he was once able to grasp through imagination, if he does not come again to the spirit, then he will become a ball of this kind!

[AshvinP]

This is not strictly related to the question about animal individuality, but searching the archive for notes on dogs and cats, I didn't find confirmation of their ego-like being (as I would surely like) but I found this:

These are great, Federica

The smell-thinking capacity is perfect description for cats too. Mine is constantly mapping out her terrain by sniffing through it .

[Federica]

This is not strictly related to the question about animal individuality, but searching the archive for notes on dogs and cats, I didn't find confirmation of their ego-like being (as I would surely like) but I found this:

These are great, Federica

The smell-thinking capacity is perfect description for cats too. Mine is constantly mapping out her terrain by sniffing through it .

Klocek about understanding cats versus dogs, in "Drawing from the book of nature". Cats are sniffers, but cautious ones, he says. Drawing animals and plants must logically be another good means to capture the nature of their life and soul beyond (by which I mean extending larger than) the physical, like writing the perceptions, not in language but still through concepts.

The cats are the other great division among the carnivores. While the dogs are limb carnivores, the cats are nerve/sense carnivores. The dog lives on the plains, the cat prefers the deserts and upland regions where it can find trees to climb and cool rock caves in which it can sleep in comfort during the day. The dog hunts by running. The cat hunts by staying still. Sitting on a tree limb, or on an overhanging rock ledge, is a favorite trick of a hunting cat. Domestic cats reveal this trait by preferring the tops of refrigerators and the backs of sofas as resting places where they can survey the area below unnoticed. Contrary to the long-winded endurance of the dog, the cat is very short-winded, but extremely fast in starting and in short bursts of speed. A cat's strength is to sit quietly, but intently, and then rapidly spring into action when the time is ripe. The dog wags its tail in unconscious joyful abandon. A cat wags its tail in calculated twitches either when it is angry or while waiting to pounce on its prey. A dog has a keen sense of smell and poor eyesight. A cat has a weak sense of smell and very developed eyesight. A dog is an aggressive sniffer, a cat is a cautious sniffer. Dogs explore things with their mouths, cats explore things with their paws. Dogs spread their limbs when lying down, cats pull in their limbs and tail when lying down. These differing traits, and many more, point to the basic will nature in the dog, and the sense nature in the cat. The will moves out to the periphery and explores in an unconscious way. The senses pull in towards the center and explore the world in a more thoughtful, considered way.

Klocek, D. (1990). Drawing from the Book of Nature. Rudolf Steiner College Press, Paris, p. 92.

[AshvinP]

This is not strictly related to the question about animal individuality, but searching the archive for notes on dogs and cats, I didn't find confirmation of their ego-like being (as I would surely like) but I found this:

These are great, Federica

The smell-thinking capacity is perfect description for cats too. Mine is constantly mapping out her terrain by sniffing through it .

Klocek about understanding cats versus dogs, in "Drawing from the book of nature". Cats are sniffers, but cautious ones, he says. Drawing animals and plants must logically be another good means to capture the nature of their life and soul beyond (by which I mean extending larger than) the physical, like writing the perceptions, not in language but still through concepts.

The cats are the other great division among the carnivores. While the dogs are limb carnivores, the cats are nerve/sense carnivores. The dog lives on the plains, the cat prefers the deserts and upland regions where it can find trees to climb and cool rock caves in which it can sleep in comfort during the day. The dog hunts by running. The cat hunts by staying still. Sitting on a tree limb, or on an overhanging rock ledge, is a favorite trick of a hunting cat. Domestic cats reveal this trait by preferring the tops of refrigerators and the backs of sofas as resting places where they can survey the area below unnoticed. Contrary to the long-winded endurance of the dog, the cat is very short-winded, but extremely fast in starting and in short bursts of speed. A cat's strength is to sit quietly, but intently, and then rapidly spring into action when the time is ripe. The dog wags its tail in unconscious joyful abandon. A cat wags its tail in calculated twitches either when it is angry or while waiting to pounce on its prey. A dog has a keen sense of smell and poor eyesight. A cat has a weak sense of smell and very developed eyesight. A dog is an aggressive sniffer, a cat is a cautious sniffer. Dogs explore things with their mouths, cats explore things with their paws. Dogs spread their limbs when lying down, cats pull in their limbs and tail when lying down. These differing traits, and many more, point to the basic will nature in the dog, and the sense nature in the cat. The will moves out to the periphery and explores in an unconscious way. The senses pull in towards the center and explore the world in a more thoughtful, considered way.

Oh yes, these are very insightful observations! And it again shows just how much of spritual reality we express through polarities on the physical plane. Cats and dogs, felines and canines. And it all comes back to the fundamental polarity of Will and Thinking (limbs and nerves/senses).

The one thing I question is the weak sense of smell for cats. Perhaps relative to dogs, but not humans. My cat can smell a single treat from across the room. Also her whole body convulses in the presence of certain undesired smells like cinnamon. Thats why I keep a box of cinnamon flavored mints around in case she is bothering me. I dont expose her to the smell, but just shaking the box is enough to keep her away : )

[Federica]

These are great, Federica

The smell-thinking capacity is perfect description for cats too. Mine is constantly mapping out her terrain by sniffing through it .

Klocek about understanding cats versus dogs, in "Drawing from the book of nature". Cats are sniffers, but cautious ones, he says. Drawing animals and plants must logically be another good means to capture the nature of their life and soul beyond (by which I mean extending larger than) the physical, like writing the perceptions, not in language but still through concepts.

The cats are the other great division among the carnivores. While the dogs are limb carnivores, the cats are nerve/sense carnivores. The dog lives on the plains, the cat prefers the deserts and upland regions where it can find trees to climb and cool rock caves in which it can sleep in comfort during the day. The dog hunts by running. The cat hunts by staying still. Sitting on a tree limb, or on an overhanging rock ledge, is a favorite trick of a hunting cat. Domestic cats reveal this trait by preferring the tops of refrigerators and the backs of sofas as resting places where they can survey the area below unnoticed. Contrary to the long-winded endurance of the dog, the cat is very short-winded, but extremely fast in starting and in short bursts of speed. A cat's strength is to sit quietly, but intently, and then rapidly spring into action when the time is ripe. The dog wags its tail in unconscious joyful abandon. A cat wags its tail in calculated twitches either when it is angry or while waiting to pounce on its prey. A dog has a keen sense of smell and poor eyesight. A cat has a weak sense of smell and very developed eyesight. A dog is an aggressive sniffer, a cat is a cautious sniffer. Dogs explore things with their mouths, cats explore things with their paws. Dogs spread their limbs when lying down, cats pull in their limbs and tail when lying down. These differing traits, and many more, point to the basic will nature in the dog, and the sense nature in the cat. The will moves out to the periphery and explores in an unconscious way. The senses pull in towards the center and explore the world in a more thoughtful, considered way.

Klocek, D. (1990). Drawing from the Book of Nature. Rudolf Steiner College Press, Paris, p. 92.

Oh yes, these are very insightful observations! And it again shows just how much of spritual reality we express through polarities on the physical plane. Cats and dogs, felines and canines. And it all comes back to the fundamental polarity of Will and Thinking (limbs and nerves/senses).

The one thing I question is the weak sense of smell for cats. Perhaps relative to dogs, but not humans. My cat can smell a single treat from across the room. Also her whole body convulses in the presence of certain undesired smells like cinnamon. Thats why I keep a box of cinnamon flavored mints around in case she is bothering me. I dont expose her to the smell, but just shaking the box is enough to keep her away : )

I easily believe the cat's sense of smell is much more developed than man's! In the case of your cat, how does it work - is the noise of the mint box that got associated with cinnamom, or is it some actual cinnamom particles that are released from the box when you shake it, or something else?

[AshvinP]

Klocek about understanding cats versus dogs, in "Drawing from the book of nature". Cats are sniffers, but cautious ones, he says. Drawing animals and plants must logically be another good means to capture the nature of their life and soul beyond (by which I mean extending larger than) the physical, like writing the perceptions, not in language but still through concepts.




Klocek, D. (1990). Drawing from the Book of Nature. Rudolf Steiner College Press, Paris, p. 92.

Oh yes, these are very insightful observations! And it again shows just how much of spritual reality we express through polarities on the physical plane. Cats and dogs, felines and canines. And it all comes back to the fundamental polarity of Will and Thinking (limbs and nerves/senses).

The one thing I question is the weak sense of smell for cats. Perhaps relative to dogs, but not humans. My cat can smell a single treat from across the room. Also her whole body convulses in the presence of certain undesired smells like cinnamon. Thats why I keep a box of cinnamon flavored mints around in case she is bothering me. I dont expose her to the smell, but just shaking the box is enough to keep her away : )

I easily believe the cat's sense of smell is much more developed than man's! In the case of your cat, how does it work - is the noise of the mint box that got associated with cinnamom, or is it some actual cinnamom particles that are released from the box when you shake it, or something else?

I think it could be both. Definitely, the noise is associated with the smell now, but perhaps some particles also release. Of course, I myself can't smell it. I just tried an experiment shaking it from across the room and she was squinting a little just from the sound.