Meditation

[Cleric K]

Is this the reason we should pray before sleeping?

Yes, one of the reasons. As a whole, it is very beneficial to go to bed with the conviction that we’re going to another type of school, even though presently we can’t remember much. Most of what happens in our waking life is prepared in the deeper soul currents. It’s not accidental that very often we wake up in the morning with completely different moods and ideas than what we had last night. I like to compare the way our soul body is connected to the sensory spectrum, to Velcro. Through the day they are stuck together and they can only slightly wiggle. At night they are loosened to a much greater extent, the soul body can go through metamorphoses of quite different magnitude and stick to the physical again in a different configuration. Through prayer we try to connect with the beings with whom these transformations can go in such a way that every day they bring something new that can benefit our development and that of everyone around us.

The other thing I think about right now thanks to your text is, that we need to learn how to understand occult literature first.
It is nothing given.
It's like a big reorientation of the former worldview.

What happens with an abstract intellectual understanding of Ss?
Will it pass the threshold too?
Or do it become worthless?

If we have approached SS in a completely abstract way, not much is retained after death. If we only look at schemes of the bodies, the planetary spheres and so on, as long as these remain purely intellectual arrangements, like mental puzzle pieces in our mind, they don’t connect with the realities. And these realities are not remote. SS becomes comprehensible when we realize that it speaks of things within which are embedded all the time. The intuitive orientation within our inner world is what remains with us after death and makes the disembodied state comprehensible.

I could also ask what happens to a person with dementia after death, will he awaken in the same way in his life review, like a healthy person?
What happens to his spiritual knowledge, if he had studied some occult literature?

This is a multifaceted question. There could be different reasons for dementia but the most important comes from the materialistic mode of being. When the soul has no inner cohesion, it is wholly dependent of the physical body for support. It is only natural that when the physical body begins to decohere, the soul experiences additionally dissociate, if we may use Bernardo’s words.

I remember years ago when I started to emerge from my atheistic state, how I realized what great difference it makes if we conceive ourselves as a soul rather than a mere brain. Before that I would surely argue that a soul is just an abstract belief in the mind – and for many this may be exactly the case – but if we really try to feel that as a reality, the way we experience our inner world really changes. Instead of feeling as sparkling neural activity we get that deeper holistic sense. Now we can feel as water, while our physical experiences are like floating ice cubes within it. Knowing our being within this fluid element makes us much more resilient against neural problems. Part of our consciousness is now experienced within fluid element which could be more independent from the physical processes.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin sez: "When we are walking in the house and bang our knee against a table, what does the pain sensation tell us? Basically, it points right back to our walking activity and tells us our attention was not present enough in that activity - perhaps we were thinking about what to wear when we go out or what to get for dinner. Then, hopefully, we take that feedback and adjust our inner state to be more present and attentive, at least until the next time we lapse into inattention and absence."

I ask: Why is this a lapse rather than a rising into a better awareness?

I don't get the question, Lou. What are we rising into a better awareness of when we walk around inattentively, bumping into things? If you mean that such bumps provide the opportunity for our spiritual activity to gain better awareness of itself, assuming it orients to the bumps consciously, then yes, that was the basic point of the example. Yet just like the JC example, if we keep going back to bumping into things, i.e. cacophonic rhythms, whenever the outer stimulus to reorient and recenter our inner state is not present, then we are not actually integrating and evolving. We eventually need to find the inner strength to recenter independently of external stimulus.

[Federica]

Ashvin, I don't find anything questionable in the quote. To me it's an invitation to progressively understand the spiritual meaning of water, with practical suggestions. "Concentrate on the water, on its pure, limpid transparency, and you will soon feel that it is reaching into unknown regions within you and working its transformations."
I am myself particularly drawn to understanding the meaning of water, as previously mentioned in this forum. Sure, "consecrated words that are consciously reflective of the activity", I understand. As I said to Cleric, what made me react is consecration when we are unconscious.

Right, and the key point is that we can't draw a hard boundary between exercises such as 'consecration' (or whatever we label it) and the act of becoming more conscious of the spiritual meaning. It is appropriate in the domain of strictly sensory knowledge to say, "I am not going to mess around with these knobs before I thoroughly understand the functions of the machine they are attached to." That is simply being prudent. But when it comes to the spiritual domain, pushing and pulling the levers of our spiritual activity, intuitively exploring its possibilities of movement and degrees of freedom, is inseparable from becoming more conscious and knowledgeable within that domain.

Well, Ashvin, as it turns out, precisely in the lecture that Cleric has recommended to Güney in this same connection, Steiner says quite the opposite to the bolded. He says that in the world of senses we first experience and then understand, but for the world of spirit, first we study the concepts of spiritual science, and then we can work at developing clairvoyance.
Which is precisely why I have been concerned with the invitation that "even if we don't understand the deeper processes we can work with these things through consecration":

It must particularly be pointed out that an indispensable factor in this development is the actual study of spiritual science. Over and over again it must be emphasised that spiritual science when given can really be understood. It cannot be emphasised too often that for the understanding of spiritual science there is no need of clairvoyance. It goes without saying that to arrive at its results one has to be clairvoyant; but once these results are gained they can be understood without clairvoyance. What must precede actual vision is the understanding of spiritual science. Here, too, it must be said that the right way is the reverse of what is right in the physical world of the senses. In the physical world of the senses we first have the right perception, after which we pass on to observation by means of thought, thus forming for ourselves a judgment based on knowledge. This must be reversed when we rise into the spiritual world. There we have first to develop concepts, making every effort to live ourselves into spiritual science objectively; otherwise we can never be sure that we shall rightly interpret anything we observe in the spiritual world. There, knowledge must come before vision.

In that sense, it is what Cleric spoke of in relation to the etheric body:

As an example, imagine how by moving your arms in all possible ways you can sweep the volume of space reachable by your fingers. It would look something like a half-sphere in front of you and as something squished behind, since we can't reach much of the space behind our back. We have intuition of space only because we can sweep it in this way. Analogously, we can sweep the 'volume' of all thoughts and memories that we can reach. Just like our intuition of space serves as the intuitive context that integrates our spatial sensations together, so the inner experience of the etheric body manifests as the intuition that glues together the degrees of freedom of our spiritual activity (mainly thinking and remembering).

The consecration and similar exercises help 'sweep the volume' of the astral body where purification through virtues translates into concrete knowledge of the rhythms of our experiential stream. Does this relate more to your initial concern?

This part you quote I immediately found very brightly expressed and insightful. It is one of Cleric's numerous images that are so helpful in gaining a first hand experience of concepts. Cleric wrote something perfectly specular and equally insightful about the experiential intuition of time, in his posts to Cosmin. Again, while I naturally don't have any problem withprogressively sweeping the astral volume, once the soul is sufficiently trained (as I wrote), I wasn't able to read that in the way Cleric first expressed it:

Even if we don't understand the deeper nature of these processes we can still work on them, for example, by consecration. Even the most trivial activities can be spiritualized in this way. For example, we wash our hands. We do that for hygienic purposes. But we can think while washing "May just as the water washes away the impurities from my hands, so Divine Love flow through me and wash away all dark thoughts and feelings." This is really the proper mood in which the exercise in question should be taken. We breathe instinctively all the time. Why not breathe once in a while by consecrating our breath to the Divine?

This to me appeared to be in plain opposition with that Steiner lecture recommended as a complement to this same topic. But now it's been clarified, thanks for your continued attention.

[Cleric K]

"In the evening, consciousness expands and encompasses the day (the evening retrospect exercise is already a preparation for this). We rise the spiritual fruits of our daily labor as an offering toward the spiritual world where they are taken by higher beings and the souls of those presently not incarnated. These fruits are for them material to work on in ways which are not possible even for the great Initiates while still in a body. These beings do not have detailed consciousness of the Earthly happenings, they live in the more encompassing Cosmic rhythms within which the sensory spectrum is embedded. Thus, in a sense, through our work and the integration of our understanding, we rise toward them ideal bundles of meaning that are compatible with their 'wavelengths'. These they can understand and see what the problems in the sensory spectrum are. The beings take these ideal bundles as objects for their higher, Cosmic meditation. From their perspective they can envision orchestrated attunements in the flows of destiny of many souls, which aim to harmonize the Earthly process according to the understanding they have received and the greater Cosmic rhythms."

Are these firm assertions based on your personal experiences and/or direct contact with disincarnate beings?

You have asked me about this before. Yes, I speak from experience but in this case this is not so important. The question is to see if the things shared make sense, whether the world we live in becomes more comprehensible. Those who want to repel such ideas can always do so. In the case of "no" they'll say "So why do you speak about things that you have not experienced?" In the case of "yes" they simply consider the person to be crazy, hallucinating and so on. So the thing of value here is simply to think about these things without prejudice.

Some disincarnate beings say they work better with people who are in deep dreamless sleep because they are less tangled in egoic projections.

This is especially true for the work that is done on our physical and life bodies. From our normal level of consciousness we can't yet do much of value there. In fact, throughout our life we continually destroy our body because of our disorderly soul life.

Things however are not the same regarding the soul body. For the work that is done there we need to have conscious ideal. Why? Because there are also other beings who try to steer the human soul towards their goals. It is a matter of freedom, so the spirits of light won't forcefully turn us into moral puppets on their divine strings. Thus if we expect that we can only sleep and hope that things will go for the better, we'll be disappointed. In fact, this is what man is doing for millennia - sleeping. Yet even after good dreamless sleep, some wake up and say "Aaahh... I love the smell of napalm in the morning." This is the simple fact. If we refuse to establish a high ideal and seek ludic consciousness of our soul life, there's simply no telling whose inspirations we instinctively follow.

[AshvinP]

Well, Ashvin, as it turns out, precisely in the lecture that Cleric has recommended to Güney in this same connection, Steiner says quite the opposite to the bolded. He says that in the world of senses we first experience and then understand, but for the world of spirit, first we study the concepts of spiritual science, and then we can work at developing clairvoyance.
Which is precisely why I have been concerned with the invitation that "even if we don't understand the deeper processes we can work with these things through consecration":

It must particularly be pointed out that an indispensable factor in this development is the actual study of spiritual science. Over and over again it must be emphasised that spiritual science when given can really be understood. It cannot be emphasised too often that for the understanding of spiritual science there is no need of clairvoyance. It goes without saying that to arrive at its results one has to be clairvoyant; but once these results are gained they can be understood without clairvoyance. What must precede actual vision is the understanding of spiritual science. Here, too, it must be said that the right way is the reverse of what is right in the physical world of the senses. In the physical world of the senses we first have the right perception, after which we pass on to observation by means of thought, thus forming for ourselves a judgment based on knowledge. This must be reversed when we rise into the spiritual world. There we have first to develop concepts, making every effort to live ourselves into spiritual science objectively; otherwise we can never be sure that we shall rightly interpret anything we observe in the spiritual world. There, knowledge must come before vision.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am speaking of. Clearly, none of these simple exercises are a direct seeking of visionary clairvoyance before an intuitive orientation and conceptual foundation is laid - they are intended for quite the opposite, to cultivate the latter. Again, I think the confusion comes in because we feel 'conceptual understanding' in the spiritual domain is attained similarly to the sensory domain. As we have discussed several times recently, and as Steiner also mentions above, the process of gaining the supersensible conceptual foundation and intuitive orientation is reached by exercising our spiritual activity, consistently streaming it up against supersensible concepts and the sensory spectrum to explore its constraints and possibilities, to open fissures of leeway between the intellectual mask and the subtle organization. Think of the yogic asanas comparison.





The more varied stances we assume with our thinking-will, the more 'dataset' we build for intuitively discerning our spiritual constraints and degrees of freedom. One stance is moving our thinking-will through the facts conveyed by spiritual science or, even more importantly, the states of consciousness from which those facts are conveyed. Other stances involve exercises like consecration, ceremonial, concentration, etc. Only by adopting these various stances with our thinking-will on a consistent basis can we start to form proper 'judgments' about the deeper layers of our organization, which of course are interwoven with the deeper layers of the Cosmos. All of this is still within the sphere of basic preparation for attaining more direct forms of spiritual perception that will coalesce around our intuitive kernel over time.

[Federica]

Well, Ashvin, as it turns out, precisely in the lecture that Cleric has recommended to Güney in this same connection, Steiner says quite the opposite to the bolded. He says that in the world of senses we first experience and then understand, but for the world of spirit, first we study the concepts of spiritual science, and then we can work at developing clairvoyance.
Which is precisely why I have been concerned with the invitation that "even if we don't understand the deeper processes we can work with these things through consecration":

It must particularly be pointed out that an indispensable factor in this development is the actual study of spiritual science. Over and over again it must be emphasised that spiritual science when given can really be understood. It cannot be emphasised too often that for the understanding of spiritual science there is no need of clairvoyance. It goes without saying that to arrive at its results one has to be clairvoyant; but once these results are gained they can be understood without clairvoyance. What must precede actual vision is the understanding of spiritual science. Here, too, it must be said that the right way is the reverse of what is right in the physical world of the senses. In the physical world of the senses we first have the right perception, after which we pass on to observation by means of thought, thus forming for ourselves a judgment based on knowledge. This must be reversed when we rise into the spiritual world. There we have first to develop concepts, making every effort to live ourselves into spiritual science objectively; otherwise we can never be sure that we shall rightly interpret anything we observe in the spiritual world. There, knowledge must come before vision.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am speaking of. Clearly, none of these simple exercises are a direct seeking of visionary clairvoyance before an intuitive orientation and conceptual foundation is laid - they are intended for quite the opposite, to cultivate the latter. Again, I think the confusion comes in because we feel 'conceptual understanding' in the spiritual domain is attained similarly to the sensory domain. As we have discussed several times recently, and as Steiner also mentions above, the process of gaining the supersensible conceptual foundation and intuitive orientation is reached by exercising our spiritual activity, consistently streaming it up against supersensible concepts and the sensory spectrum to explore its constraints and possibilities, to open fissures of leeway between the intellectual mask and the subtle organization. Think of the yogic asanas comparison.





The more varied stances we assume with our thinking-will, the more 'dataset' we build for intuitively discerning our spiritual constraints and degrees of freedom. One stance is moving our thinking-will through the facts conveyed by spiritual science or, even more importantly, the states of consciousness from which those facts are conveyed. Other stances involve exercises like consecration, ceremonial, concentration, etc. Only by adopting these various stances with our thinking-will on a consistent basis can we start to form proper 'judgments' about the deeper layers of our organization, which of course are interwoven with the deeper layers of the Cosmos. All of this is still within the sphere of basic preparation for attaining more direct forms of spiritual perception that will coalesce around our intuitive kernel over time.

Omg Ashvin, I know that, sorry but this is pedantic. Steiner is the one drawing the direct comparison between knowledge in the sense world and in the spirit world for the sake of his point, and I have quoted that with the specific purpose of questioning the idea of consacrating without understanding. Not for the purpose of suddenly argue that we can study spiritual science from the side. The fact is, your example that I bolded is reversed in the quote. Another fact is, the invitation to consecrate without understanding cannot be supported by the quote. I also think that (as I wrote) the definition of clarvoyance (beyond its exoteric definition) is nothing other than the accomplished experience of the first person perspective, of course beyond the initial steps of the concept and realization of it in the sense world.

clairvoyance, that is, experiential, conscious understanding of reality from without the magnetizing and dulling filter of our physical body.

Other than that, we have referred to direct experience in thousands possible contexts for months and years now. You seem to overlook the meaningful intutive context slowly formed through countless conversations on this forum that now only are possible when it's a given that true knowledge cannot be acquired from the side. I'm not sure either that, or you think I must have suddenly lost connection with reality, or suffered from brain injury, and need yoga rehab

[AshvinP]

Another fact is, the invitation to consecrate without understanding cannot be supported by the quote...

Other than that, we have referred to direct experience in thousands possible contexts for months and years now. You seem to overlook the meaningful intutive context slowly formed through countless conversations on this forum that now only are possible when it's a given that true knowledge cannot be acquired from the side. I'm not sure either that, or you think I must have suddenly lost connection with reality, or suffered from brain injury, and need yoga rehab

Alright, Federica, let's forget the Steiner quotes and whether I was or was not pointing to the same thing. We disagree on that and also on the definition of "clairvoyance" in the context that Steiner often uses it, such as that quote.

I'm glad you brought the above up because this is what confuses me about your initial objection. It is as if you ask, "let's imagine someone who was not on this forum reading the posts, not studying the phenomenology of spiritual activity, not doing concentration, meditation, and prayer, etc... let's imagine this person suddenly came across the idea to consecrate hand washing - couldn't this be a premature advance without understanding that is liable to generate superstitious reliance on the 'magnetizing and dulling filter of the physical body'?" That's the only way that I can imagine you took Cleric's suggestion and translated it into "consecrate without understanding". Maybe I am missing something.

I am also still completely unclear on what you think would comprise sufficient "understanding" to begin consecration exercises. Maybe you can give some indications of that. At what level of understanding should we be before washing our hands with the devotional mood and intent of purifying our psychic body is not liable for superstition?

[Federica]

Alright, Federica, let's forget the Steiner quotes and whether I was or was not pointing to the same thing. We disagree on that and also on the definition of "clairvoyance" in the context that Steiner often uses it, such as that quote.

Ashvin, for the sake of remaining able to rely on written text as a valuable means to communicate meaning - in this cultural epoch at least - I don’t think we can forget the Steiner quote, and how it goes in the opposite direction, not the same direction, to your statements. Of course I can’t force you to reply, but I think it’s crucial to clarify that quote, or otherwise admit that all written ideas are worth nothing, since they can mean something and its opposite at the same time.

I’m seeing as a clear fact that Steiner, in that lecture, compares knowledge in the world of senses with knowledge in the higher worlds, stating that the way they are gained is reversed, in the two worlds. In the world of senses - he says - we go from experience to concepts, but the reverse is true in the higher worlds, where understanding of the concepts precedes vision, clairvoyance, direct experience of the spiritual world from outside the physical body, or however else you want to call it. This is unequivocally stated:

It must particularly be pointed out that an indispensable factor in this development is the actual study of spiritual science. Over and over again it must be emphasized that spiritual science when given can really be understood. It cannot be emphasized too often that for the understanding of spiritual science there is no need of clairvoyance. It goes without saying that to arrive at its results one has to be clairvoyant; but once these results are gained they can be understood without clairvoyance. What must precede actual vision is the understanding of spiritual science. Here, too, it must be said that the right way is the reverse of what is right in the physical world of the senses. In the physical world of the senses we first have the right perception, after which we pass on to observation by means of thought, thus forming for ourselves a judgment based on knowledge. This must be reversed when we rise into the spiritual world. There we have first to develop concepts, making every effort to live ourselves into spiritual science objectively; otherwise we can never be sure that we shall rightly interpret anything we observe in the spiritual world. There, knowledge must come before vision.

By contrast:

the key point is that we can't draw a hard boundary between exercises such as 'consecration' (or whatever we label it) and the act of becoming more conscious of the spiritual meaning. It is appropriate in the domain of strictly sensory knowledge to say, "I am not going to mess around with these knobs before I thoroughly understand the functions of the machine they are attached to." That is simply being prudent. But when it comes to the spiritual domain, pushing and pulling the levers of our spiritual activity, intuitively exploring its possibilities of movement and degrees of freedom, is inseparable from becoming more conscious and knowledgeable within that domain.

So your statement is that “in the domain of strictly sensory knowledge” it’s appropriate to first understand and then experience, but “when it comes to the spiritual domain we can’t draw a hard boundary” between “exploring the degrees of freedom” and “becoming more conscious and knowledgeable”. Of course, you mean that knowledge cannot be acquired from the side, and I of course agree, but what you emphasize is clearly and literally the opposite of what Steiner emphasizes! You argue that study before experience is valid in the world of senses, while Steiner is recommending that for the spiritual world! Of course, when one has experiences in meditation, one is present in first person, but in order to make sense of that experience, thorough study must precede. Steiner is stressing that, while you were stressing the true, but out-of-context, general rule of “no hard boundaries”, for the sake of defending the consecration exercise.

I am sure you remember, as I do, that Cleric mentioned that this necessary preceding of understanding, obtained by means of “actual study” as Steiner says, not by meditation, didn’t happen for him, which caused him a few hurdles on his personal path. Nevertheless, you keep insisting that there are no hard boundaries… Of course you are right, in the sense that the path of living thinking must be walked from the inside, through exercices, but this is off-topic in this connection! Here it’s a question of being at the threshold of clairvoyance, as Güney is. “Vision” here is nothing very remote - as you have strangely stated somewhere above - but the very precise and immediate context of that same discussion in which the exercise was suggested to work on these things by consecration, “even if we don’t understand the deeper nature” of our astral being and its relations with the astral world.

This is precisely the same context - that of developing clairvoyance - where Steiner says that study and understanding must precede vision. So when you seriously turn all this into me not getting what knowledge from the side versus living experience means, after years of referring to that, down to your yogic asanas exemple, outside of the present context, I really feel you have gone entirely off-topic.

Am I making myself understood?
And can you please explain how you manage to disagree with that (if you still do)?

[AshvinP]

Alright, Federica, let's forget the Steiner quotes and whether I was or was not pointing to the same thing. We disagree on that and also on the definition of "clairvoyance" in the context that Steiner often uses it, such as that quote.

Ashvin, for the sake of remaining able to rely on written text as a valuable means to communicate meaning - in this cultural epoch at least - I don’t think we can forget the Steiner quote, and how it goes in the opposite direction, not the same direction, to your statements. Of course I can’t force you to reply, but I think it’s crucial to clarify that quote, or otherwise admit that all written ideas are worth nothing, since they can mean something and its opposite at the same time.

I’m seeing as a clear fact that Steiner, in that lecture, compares knowledge in the world of senses with knowledge in the higher worlds, stating that the way they are gained is reversed, in the two worlds. In the world of senses - he says - we go from experience to concepts, but the reverse is true in the higher worlds, where understanding of the concepts precedes vision, clairvoyance, direct experience of the spiritual world from outside the physical body, or however else you want to call it. This is unequivocally stated:

It must particularly be pointed out that an indispensable factor in this development is the actual study of spiritual science. Over and over again it must be emphasized that spiritual science when given can really be understood. It cannot be emphasized too often that for the understanding of spiritual science there is no need of clairvoyance. It goes without saying that to arrive at its results one has to be clairvoyant; but once these results are gained they can be understood without clairvoyance. What must precede actual vision is the understanding of spiritual science. Here, too, it must be said that the right way is the reverse of what is right in the physical world of the senses. In the physical world of the senses we first have the right perception, after which we pass on to observation by means of thought, thus forming for ourselves a judgment based on knowledge. This must be reversed when we rise into the spiritual world. There we have first to develop concepts, making every effort to live ourselves into spiritual science objectively; otherwise we can never be sure that we shall rightly interpret anything we observe in the spiritual world. There, knowledge must come before vision.

By contrast:

the key point is that we can't draw a hard boundary between exercises such as 'consecration' (or whatever we label it) and the act of becoming more conscious of the spiritual meaning. It is appropriate in the domain of strictly sensory knowledge to say, "I am not going to mess around with these knobs before I thoroughly understand the functions of the machine they are attached to." That is simply being prudent. But when it comes to the spiritual domain, pushing and pulling the levers of our spiritual activity, intuitively exploring its possibilities of movement and degrees of freedom, is inseparable from becoming more conscious and knowledgeable within that domain.

So your statement is that “in the domain of strictly sensory knowledge” it’s appropriate to first understand and then experience, but “when it comes to the spiritual domain we can’t draw a hard boundary” between “exploring the degrees of freedom” and “becoming more conscious and knowledgeable”. Of course, you mean that knowledge cannot be acquired from the side, and I of course agree, but what you emphasize is clearly and literally the opposite of what Steiner emphasizes! You argue that study before experience is valid in the world of senses, while Steiner is recommending that for the spiritual world! Of course, when one has experiences in meditation, one is present in first person, but in order to make sense of that experience, thorough study must precede. Steiner is stressing that, while you were stressing the true, but out-of-context, general rule of “no hard boundaries”, for the sake of defending the consecration exercise.

I am sure you remember, as I do, that Cleric mentioned that this necessary preceding of understanding, obtained by means of “actual study” as Steiner says, not by meditation, didn’t happen for him, which caused him a few hurdles on his personal path. Nevertheless, you keep insisting that there are no hard boundaries… Of course you are right, in the sense that the path of living thinking must be walked from the inside, through exercices, but this is off-topic in this connection! Here it’s a question of being at the threshold of clairvoyance, as Güney is. “Vision” here is nothing very remote - as you have strangely stated somewhere above - but the very precise and immediate context of that same discussion in which the exercise was suggested to work on these things by consecration, “even if we don’t understand the deeper nature” of our astral being and its relations with the astral world.

This is precisely the same context - that of developing clairvoyance - where Steiner says that study and understanding must precede vision. So when you seriously turn all this into me not getting what knowledge from the side versus living experience means, after years of referring to that, down to your yogic asanas exemple, outside of the present context, I really feel you have gone entirely off-topic.

Am I making myself understood?
And can you please explain how you manage to disagree with that (if you still do)?

Yes, Federica, you are understood, and I can explain where the disagreement is. We both agree that sense-observation (experience) comes before concepts that lead to (functional) knowledge in the sensory domain, also reflected in the Steiner quote. If it helps, we can extend the previous metaphor so that we are passively observing the machine work before we form the relevant understanding to start doing something with our spiritual activity, i.e. turning the knobs. On the other hand, conceptual exploration comes before spiritual sight that leads to inner (functional and essential) knowledge in the soul-spiritual domain, as also reflected in Steiner's quote. Of course, we shouldn't imagine this is separated by a hard boundary either - knowing the functional essence of the soul-spiritual domain will certainly improve our functional knowledge of the sensory domain in unsuspected ways.

Where the disagreement comes in is what "conceptual exploration" means or implies in relation to the soul-spiritual domain. You seem to feel that a consecration or purification exercise involving bodily will gestures is something other than conceptual exploration, whereas I would say it is a kinesthetic stance (one of many) our thinking-will can take for precisely that conceptual exploration. The exercise is not an invocation or expectation of 'spiritual sight', in the way I understand the latter. Rather, it is a means of sweeping the astral volume and building an intuition for deeper rhythms of our soul life which can precipitate into concepts that give more finely textured meaning to that intuition.

This is further complicated by the fact that in the sensory domain we expect our 'sweeping' for concepts to be something where we do all the observing and discursive thinking while the objects of our study remain fixed and static. For the soul-spiritual domain, it is more like we make certain intentional gestures toward the object of our inquiry and the latter then speak back to us the concepts needed to kindle our intuition. In a sense, the object of our inquiry, i.e. soul-spiritual activity, is also observing and thinking us. I think mathematical thinking is the closest example of this we experience in normal life, as we make mathematical gestures to steer toward a certain region of intuitive space and then wait for the corresponding concepts to incarnate from mysterious depths.

This is especially the case when we move from the etheric to the astral volume. With the former, we are at the border of thinking and feeling and can still sweep the volume with organic 'pure thinking', not necessarily involving mood of prayer or bodily will. With the astral, we come to the border of feeling and willing and therefore some concrete prayerful gestures may be needed. None of this is meant as hard and fast 'rules' of spiritual inquiry, which is again something that only applies to the sensory domain. They are only loose and flexible indications of the directions we can start moving our thinking-will in these domains.

So that is where I currently think the disagreement resides - the understanding of 'conceptual exploration' in relation to the soul-spiritual domain. This could be further clarified if you offer some indications on what sort of concepts about the spiritual meaning of water (or whatever) is necessary before it is 'safe' or 'non-arbitrary' to engage in such consecrating gestures. For ex., if we carefully read OMA's passage quoted above, do we now have the necessary concepts? Do we need more detailed knowledge of the archetypal and elemental beings who are involved? Do we need imaginative cognition of such beings? This could be important because the topic of whether certain things are too esoteric, occult, advanced, etc. for us to meaningfully relate to them has come up on the forum a few times before.

[Cleric K]

It needs to be reminded that ‘study’ of spiritual science has to be understood in a different way than what can usually be imagined. Studying here shouldn’t be taken in the sense that we first have to encompass SS abstractly in our mind and only then start meditating. To study SS means to meditate on the ideas, to try to experience their first-person reality. Here’s another à la asana example



This is training for formation skydiving. They use these so-called creep boards to move around and rehearse their moves. And even this analogy is not perfect because in skydiving we move up in the sky, while in meditation-study we’re already in the sky. It’s just that we don’t yet have the subtle sensitivity for the ideal lines within which our existence is embedded. But nevertheless, true study of spiritual science means to take a communicated experience and try to seek the real inner configuration from which the description should be experienced as reality.

Let me state it thus: when we study the descriptions of spiritual science, when we try to assume the perspective from which they proceed, we should not think to ourselves “I’m only studying. As I study-meditate now I’m not seeking the real thing but only preparing for it.” This, however, introduces unnecessary duality on our path. In this way we may never reach a moment when we say “OK, I think I’m ready now, enough mockup meditation, now I start the real-real meditation.” It would be better if when we study, we’re always dealing with the real-real and be open that any session may lead to a more significant breakthrough.

Now the question might be “But if we study-meditate in such a real-real way isn’t there a chance to break through prematurely?” When we work with clear ideal, there isn’t really such a concern. Otherwise it would be like studying the Pythagoras theorem and be worried that we may understand it prematurely. But the understanding is our goal! To understand the facts of spiritual science we must experience them from the same perspective from which the initiate has communicated them, even though our perspective would be much more aliased. If we imagine that we first have to understand everything from a mocked up perspective, we’re creating an artificial orthogonality between our experience and the supposed real experience. If we have trust in our guides, we shouldn’t worry that we’ll experience something for which we’re not ready.

And maybe part of the problem comes from the idea which ‘breakthrough’ carries today, as if suddenly we’ll see everything. People consider such a breakthrough to be when they are flooded with the etheric visions and lose their vocabulary. Then the experiences are conceived as the spiritual world as-it-is. The only premature thing about this, is that one hasn’t learned about how these images should be related to. But on the spiritual scientific path this is one of the first things that we learn. So there’s no need to worry that etheric vision may flood us. As far as higher cognition - that simply can’t ‘flood’ us in the way it's often imagined. A simple minded person can be flooded with images of mathematical formulas but in no can be accidentally and prematurely flooded by mathematical understanding. The latter, just like higher intuition, can only be developed gradually.

Let’s take a concrete example. We know the descriptions that the ancient Saturn condition can only remotely be compared to the sense of inner warmth. In other words, we have to imagine away the inner experience of our bones, nerves, blood and conceive that only the ethereal sense of bodily warmth remains. Now what does it mean to study this fact? If we simply imagine the ancient Saturn condition as a Cosmic ball of inner warmth, we’re still implicitly assuming something like “This is how I imagine it but in reality it will be something completely different.” And yes, it will be different but not incomparably different. After all, the whole reason things have been communicated in this way is because this is how the state can be described. So to study these facts in the true sense, we need to at least try to assume their perspective. Even if for a split second, we can try to feel this foundational fiery will onto which all more convoluted forms of existence are modulated. Yes, it won’t be easy, our inner activity is like a wild pendulum that only for a split second passes through the balance point where the fact can be experienced as something stable. But still, we study in the proper way only when we try to approach this point in the real-real sense. And what if by thus meditating we indeed snap into the point, sink into the liminal spaces and feel our familiar sensations recede as a periphery (not in strictly geometric sense)? Well, it then means that we have better understood the spiritual fact in question. This fact is only a particular ideal vector within the spiritual world. It’s not like everything will become clear to us in an instant.

This is the reason why study comes first in spiritual science. Because these ideal vectors have to be worked upon slowly and patiently. They don’t come as a flood of visions. But at the same time, to study them means to seek their real-real experience, and not simply to have schematic mockup of them. If we first try to prepare by enumerating them and examine them as schematics, we may never feel that the time is right to approach their reality, we'll always feel that we're not sufficiently prepared and secure. On the other hand, by aiming towards the real experiences, we'll necessarily pass through the mockup phase even if we don't want it, so there's no need to specifically seek it out.