Anthroposophy?

[Ecclectic79]

I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever read any of Rudolph Steiner's work or 'The Burning Bush' by Edward Reaugh Smith.

I got somewhat interested in that last year, prior to coming back, I'd been researching theosophy. Anthroposophy seems like its a Christ-centered theosophy which is, as far as I can tell, somewhat coupled with Rosicrucian beliefs albeit I haven't read enough formal Rosicrucian literature to know whether Rudolph Steiner's outlooks are even more out in left/theosophic field or whether this lies pretty close to the core of what's believed across the board within Rosicrucianism.

There's a lot I could say about what I have read so far, I definitely take it all with a grain of salt albeit it does seem like its good hypothesis fodder for apology and it's at least helped me chew over some rather out-of-the-box questions about the nature of the bible so far.

 

[Raulg]

Theosophy is a good line of study to get all around perspectives from most other traditions. CHRIST, or the Body of CHRIST, I believe in that philosophy is One Human Collective Life Wave (or Race), where those who reach a certain realizations (levels of development) join up in a higher plane with a Hierarchy of Beings (man and 'others', such as angels/devas) who's work it is to continue to Inspire Humanity (their lower brothers at this point, those of us who've not attained to that higher plane/higher consciousness). They inspire according to certain cosmic Laws, so as to not interfere out rightly with the otherwise Natural evolution of our Collective Being (Christ).

At some point, at the end of an Age (7th round about a 7th globe), those who've not attained to a realization of being a Unity with all Life, and especially with their Life Wave (Body of Christ), will have to repeat the Human evolutionary process all over again, which is the true Hell of existence, for another chance, during another eon. The rest of us, all together as One in Christ, will graduate to another Kingdom of Life (under the Hierarchy of Worlds in existence that are ruled by Law, which is God) where there is no suffering as we have it here in our dual existence in these worlds of man.

lol

I might have just made most of that up, but in Esoterics, the idea is something like that.

Much food for thought, for open minds.

 

[Ecclectic79]

Interesting to see this thread catch a reply.

I actually in the past several months joined AMORC (Rosicrucian) and BOTA (Paul Foster Case's Builders of the Adytum). Part of me in reading the bible finally had to admit to the likelihood of its eclectic origins by way of OT and Revelations symbolism - much of which is couched more subtly in the gospels.

One of the orders I'm finding myself very interested though as it seems to be the major nexus for things Judao-Christian esoteric is Martinism. I'm hoping somewhere in the next five years I might either find a heptad starting somewhere near me or find myself in a city that has one.

To me theosophy (not to be confused with the Theosophic Society) is the grand apologia for everything material, everything spiritual, the holy books out there and the experiences of the great mystics of our times as well as antiquity. By mainstream standards it can make someone a bit unorthodox however it also causes one to realize, particularly who was raised within Christianity or Judaism, just how rich and interesting their tradition really is.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Interesting to see this thread catch a reply.

I actually in the past several months joined AMORC (Rosicrucian) and BOTA (Paul Foster Case's Builders of the Adytum). Part of me in reading the bible finally had to admit to the likelihood of its eclectic origins by way of OT and Revelations symbolism - much of which is couched more subtly in the gospels.

One of the orders I'm finding myself very interested though as it seems to be the major nexus for things Judao-Christian esoteric is Martinism. I'm hoping somewhere in the next five years I might either find a heptad starting somewhere near me or find myself in a city that has one.

To me theosophy (not to be confused with the Theosophic Society) is the grand apologia for everything material, everything spiritual, the holy books out there and the experiences of the great mystics of our times as well as antiquity. By mainstream standards it can make someone a bit unorthodox however it also causes one to realize, particularly who was raised within Christianity or Judaism, just how rich and interesting their tradition really is.

So you're a member of BOTA, AMORC, and you have an interest in Martinism as well? I'm not a member of any of those but I'm familiar enough with the work that entails from such membership.

Take it easy or your brain is going to explode.

Also, how are you separating Theosophy from the Theosophical Society? Or are you using Theosophy in a generic sense?

 

[Ecclectic79]

Also, how are you separating Theosophy from the Theosophical Society? Or are you using Theosophy in a generic sense?

It was more the later - generic sense. To me it simply means cross-check and comparison to get the whole story behind certain movements, events, and historic spiritual impulses.

I'm still not sure what to say on the Theosophic Society. Supposedly it's based on a valid eastern tradition (handed off to HP Blavatski by Ranbir Singh and his brother who were Kashmiri provincial rulers), on the other hand - it as a European/US organization - has had a history of a certain caliphate impulse, something that Rudolph Steiner found about the hard way and also something that Papus found himself squared off against. I also get the chills when I hear the stories about WC Leadbetter and his trips to India. Alice Bailey's society also seems to show from what I understand an incredible amount of dogmatism. Overall I wouldn't be against reading up on the stuff but, I hate the politics and find the Eastern-supremacy thing annoying and anything that starts waxing actively anti-Christian gets bad marks in my books. I grew up on the bible, the bible seems to have plenty in it, the related cultures such as Egypt, Greece, and Persia seem to have plenty of interwoven mystic history, and for all the alchemy and mysticism we have available to us without going Eastern I'd rather explore the western mysteries for what they're worth and where the odd bit of eastern like Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali might back up something like John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul - I'll apply eastern mystery there but let it stay more in a supporting role.

 

[timewerx]

You guys should tremble at what you're doing...

What esotericism and theosophy stands for is in contradiction of these verses (see highlighted phrases):

Isaiah 65:1-5
“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me;
I was found by those who did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on my name,
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’
2 All day long I have held out my hands
to an obstinate people,
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations—
3 a people who continually provoke me
to my very face,
offering sacrifices in gardens
and burning incense on altars of brick;
4 who sit among the graves
and spend their nights keeping secret vigil;
who eat the flesh of pigs,
and whose pots hold broth of impure meat;
5 who say, ‘Keep away; don’t come near me,
for I am too sacred for you!’
Such people are smoke in my nostrils,
a fire that keeps burning all day.

You should not study or even be fond or have interest in things that are abominations to God (i.e. Traditions, culture, and religions of the world)

Isaiah 66:3
But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a person,
and whoever offers a lamb
is like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig’s blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense
is like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and they delight in their abominations;

1 John 2:15
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[a] is not in them.

particularly who was raised within Christianity or Judaism, just how rich and interesting their tradition really is.

Traditions are not rich and interesting... They are abominations. See verses above and also Luke 16:15.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I would think not all traditions are bad, especially those said to have come from the Apostles. Of course the problem them becomes "prove it" as Mormons make same claims. But that is another topic.

A problem I would have with these particular traditions mentioned in the OP is the idea of "secret" or "hidden" knowledge. Jesus said go and teach. He did not say go and find secrets or go and hide knowledge. The Apostles are then depicted teaching, not appealing to people to seek hidden knowledge or secrets.

 

[timewerx]

I would think not all traditions are bad, especially those said to have come from the Apostles.

I wouldn't trust the apostles 100%

Remember when Jesus asked Peter 3x, "Do you love me"? Peter betrayed his love for Jesus soon after that.

Just before Jesus left for Heaven, Jesus again asked Peter 3x, "feed my sheep". I think that is a subtle prophecy that Peter might fail in his mission to feed God's sheep with the Truth/God's Words.

A problem I would have with these particular traditions mentioned in the OP is the idea of "secret" or "hidden" knowledge. Jesus said go and teach. He did not say go and find secrets or go and hide knowledge. The Apostles are then depicted teaching, not appealing to people to seek hidden knowledge or secrets.

If you do not know what you're looking for, don't waste your time finding it!

Acts 17:23
For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: to an unknown god. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship--and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

There is no mystery between God and His children, everything is crystal clear! You have what these guys could only dream about!

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I wouldn't trust the apostles 100%

Remember when Jesus asked Peter 3x, "Do you love me"? Peter betrayed his love for Jesus soon after that.

Just before Jesus left for Heaven, Jesus again asked Peter 3x, "feed my sheep". I think that is a subtle prophecy that Peter might fail in his mission to feed God's sheep with the Truth/God's Words.

Kind of a fatalistic view of the whole purpose of Jesus teaching those men for three years and telling them to go and teach. I can understand those who said that effort by Jesus failed would need to then have prophets and secrets to rely on. I prefer a view which says they did just that and were able to do what He told they should do.

If you do not know what you're looking for, don't waste your time finding it!

I agree it is funny these folks are seeking hidden, secret messages. I do not agree they are "lost'.

There is no mystery between God and His children, everything is crystal clear! You have what these guys could only dream about!

Thanks I think.

 

[Ecclectic79]

You guys should tremble at what you're doing...

What esotericism and theosophy stands for is in contradiction of these verses (see highlighted phrases):

timewerx, thanks for the caveats.

I've been through it, examined the lines of reasoning in from all over the bible including probably the heaviest hitting stuff such as Deuteronomy. Oddly enough it was the bible itself, particularly from the NT John's writings and their tie outs with what you tend to call pagan abominations such as the Pentateuch, Ezekiel, etc., that lead me here which is part of why Martinism IMHO is very much worth a shot in my case.

I'm quite confident in the research that informed my decisions. I refuse to tell you how to think of course, this is your own spiritual journey and you have to live up to the best of your understandings. Just saying thanks and if by chance I should see some great malefic anti-God conspiracy then as a given my spiritual warfare understanding as well as my understanding of the details of God's creation in the face of that will be that much the better for taking the risk and I might have something better to offer than polemics and demagogy (which - for the amount of acquaintance with these groups at this point the odds of that seem to be relative nil mainly because I understand now a lot better where they're coming from). In my own path I have really two choices per a certain parable I think - be one of the two servants who had 5,000 or 2,000 gold pieces, or be the one who buried his 1,000. This was far from a thoughtless decision and in a lot of ways the facts dragged me kicking and screaming, something I'm greatly thankful for now. It's my calling whether or not that's something that scares people on the periphery.

 

[Ecclectic79]

A problem I would have with these particular traditions mentioned in the OP is the idea of "secret" or "hidden" knowledge. Jesus said go and teach. He did not say go and find secrets or go and hide knowledge. The Apostles are then depicted teaching, not appealing to people to seek hidden knowledge or secrets.

The 'hidden' part is a strange one in western context.

What I mean by that:

First angle - hidden by the burning of books in the third and fourth century, erasure of competing histories, much of anything to undo that being collection work of the Renaissance by people of the likes and including the Di Medici's. Hidden also in that during the RCC's caliphate period good luck getting an RCC printing approval on a rival idea (let alone keeping yourself off the rotisserie), Lutherans had to fight tooth and nail to open that market place and could only open the door by making something very close to Catholicism. Even up through the 1800's the issue of inquisition was strong stuff.

Part two - these groups, anyone these days can pay $10-$20 a month, join, and study. I wouldn't call it 'secret', I'd call it proprietary. I'd consider it being like a good martial arts instructor; you can go learn but you're not really supposed to give out the lesson plan.

I wouldn't consider these things really naturally hidden, maybe culturally cloistered but not naturally cloak n' dagger so to speak.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The 'hidden' part is a strange one in western context.

What I mean by that:

First angle - hidden by the burning of books in the third and fourth century, erasure of competing histories, much of anything to undo that being collection work of the Renaissance by people of the likes and including the Di Medici's. Hidden also in that during the RCC's caliphate period good luck getting an RCC printing approval on a rival idea (let alone keeping yourself off the rotisserie), Lutherans had to fight tooth and nail to open that market place and could only open the door by making something very close to Catholicism. Even up through the 1800's the issue of inquisition was strong stuff.

Part two - these groups, anyone these days can pay $10-$20 a month, join, and study. I wouldn't call it 'secret', I'd call it proprietary. I'd consider it being like a good martial arts instructor; you can go learn but you're not really supposed to give out the lesson plan.

I wouldn't consider these things really naturally hidden, maybe culturally cloistered but not naturally cloak n' dagger so to speak.

As the records we have, including the opposing view, we have because of the Church, am not sure how these claims ring true. Take the writings of the Origen, who despite falling away in some teachings near the end of life, is still considered a Father of the Church and we have both is good and bad teachings preserved for us.
BTW the "burnings", which I can only assume as a reference to what occurred to the great library of works (secular and sacred) the stored in "libraries" in Alexandria - which the history we do know (not hollyweird or Jack Chic representations of it) is that most works were lost during acts of war by Rome, not the Church. Those burnings are often mixed in both legend and memory with the later actions of the Patriarch of Alexandria (Bishop) first closing and then zealots destroying pagan temples which housed what a much smaller collection of works. Where works lost? Yes, is that clear it the later destruction of the temples were sanctioned by the Bishop? No but he was not able to stop it either. Again a huge if not the greatest source today of both secular and Sacred manuscripts from that age is the Church.

 

[Ecclectic79]

I tend to think also of the church, as well as the RCC, as a very different place than it was in the times of Constantine or Justinian. Back then assassination politics and the likes were incredibly common and memories of what was going on between the Arians, Nestorians, etc. it got super-nasty. That evolution is something I also consider as having a lensing effect on how we see thing now - ie. certain ideas went about strongly back then that were accepted and even with the disagreements of the protestants with the Catholic church I don't know how much more information they had to go on about the past than by Catholic tradition and their own Catholic upbringing - ie. I'm not sure how fair a shot they had at distancing from tautology and functionally-fixed review of the bible that, for the blessings and curses of our own time, we have right now. I guess my only point being that so much of what the protestant world calls the pagandom of Catholicism (ie. the Mary aspect, the petition of the saints) might hold a lot of clues as to really things that got lost in translation. That's at least what I was coming to find.

(edit: I should specify when I say lost in translation I mean contextual information and other outside supports perhaps later dispensed with rather than physical translation of the gospels)

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I tend to think also of the church, as well as the RCC, as a very different place than it was in the times of Constantine or Justinian. Back then assassination politics and the likes were incredibly common and memories of what was going on between the Arians, Nestorians, etc. it got super-nasty. That evolution is something I also consider as having a lensing effect on how we see thing now - ie. certain ideas went about strongly back then that were accepted and even with the disagreements of the protestants with the Catholic church I don't know how much more information they had to go on about the past than by Catholic tradition and their own Catholic upbringing - ie. I'm not sure how fair a shot they had at distancing from tautology and functionally-fixed review of the bible that, for the blessings and curses of our own time, we have right now. I guess my only point being that so much of what the protestant world calls the pagandom of Catholicism (ie. the Mary aspect, the petition of the saints) might hold a lot of clues as to really things that got lost in translation. That's at least what I was coming to find.

(edit: I should specify when I say lost in translation I mean contextual information and other outside supports perhaps later dispensed with rather than physical translation of the gospels)

LOL, I would agree Jack Chic clearly teaches about the "pagandom" of Catholicism. Would not agree that creates an accurate picture of the history of Christianity. The only reason we have any of the writings from gnosticism, montanism, arianism, pelagiansim is the Church, saving both the resulting debates and copies of manuscripts of various proponents of those heresies.

We could not have people like Jack Chic pointing to that history and say see there are our fore-fathers being persecuted by the Church unless those docs were preserved. The Church became the only lasting entity that could successfully preserve those things for us to read and reference today. People like Steiner wishing to revive a somewhat gnostic (and specifically non-religious for him anyway) view/philosophy of the spiritual realm (anthroposophy) could certainly connect with those writings, which again he could only appeal such ancient because of the Church.

 

[Ecclectic79]

To tell the truth, after reading about six Steiner books I came away feeling like while he had some interesting notions regarding the synoptic problem the planetary evolutions seemed increasingly specious from the standpoint that his analysis of previous root races had some very strange characteristics. For example him arguing that the length of the life of planets and stars between pralayas was 7*7*2,160 years or 105.840 years. These 'rounds' greatly differ from carbon dating. The other problem is that typically in these systems it's claimed that we're the fifth root race of the planet, going in the order from first to last-most-recent Polar, Hyperborean, Lemurian, Atlantean. He starts with the Lemurians being on etheric life support and living on a lava-covered planet which then congeled in a very foggy planet for the Atlanteans. If we were to take carbon dating right that would be billions of years of Lemurians while the planet was red hot (exceeding their 15,120 alotted time by a few years give or take), really forgetting about the first two claimed races, and giving the Atlanteans a much smaller slice of time albeit whatever it was still much longer than the 15,120 alotted for them either I'm sure. In the end though it seems like Rudolph Steiner contradicted himself in a lot of ways that mutually exclude, and for me that takes any particular leg of his theory where that happened and amputates them.

What I'm getting from all the mystics - both Christian and other - running around out there who write such accounts of what they encounter when they try running around the akashic records is that these things have to be so dense with so much activity and such a counter-intuitive layout that most reasonable people can get incredibly lost in them and would have a heck of a time reasonably connecting one thing to another unless they spent years out there and counted everything as specious that they couldn't prove by some kind of physiological evidence on the earth.

As for the Gnostics, we may have some around here and I hope I'm not hurting their feelings but I strongly sense that they're the closest thing to a straw-man alternative to what Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism put together. Mike Heiser had a wonderful 7 hour debunk of the Da Vinci Code in which he went into Sethian, Valentinian, etc. schools of thought and examined them. The problem is - even studying the western mysteries as I am, Gnosticism seems incredibly spaceball. I see connections to Manichaeism but aside from that the whole premise barely seems in keeping with anything, even for mystic import it just kinda limps along. I tried reading the Pistis Sophia and it seemed to have all the same problems where the best I could do is see them philosophically playing with Psalms, playing with concepts of "What's bigger than bigger than bigger than...." etc., and anything that was in there that jived with other cultural beliefs seemed to be borrowed badly, including Sophia which.... I'm sorry..... she's Chokmah of Proverbs 8 if anything, perhaps additionally the great lady of Egypt to whom no man can see past her veil if one is willing to look in that direction, not an 'aeon' as far as I can tell. John Lash - interesting story teller but it seems like it's all tall tales when held out against history, lots of color but very little I can corroborate.

What I do think the early Catholic church may have practiced though is this - they were converting pagans rapidly by telling them, regarding their pantheons, "Oh, we have someone to pray to in that area too...and in that area....". Between the Blessed Mother, archangels, and communion of saints I really see something a lot like the Tree of Life - ie. the Alexandrian Jewish way of explaining to polytheists which aspects of God fit their different aspects of one God. It's a bit like a polytheism/monotheism AC/DC converter with ten spheres and twenty-two paths. True, Moshe de Leon was 12th century but Sefir Yetzirah was definitely contemporary with RCC and at it's youngest supposedly a 3rd century document. That kind of mysticism has field day with the Gospel of John but that's another story.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Well I think the only people who typically have problems with various theories and ideas from science typically tend to have evangelical and/or fundamental backgrounds/upbringing where they were taught the Bible speaks against all these things.
So from that background I could see the appeal for someone like Steiner offering an explanation which might alleviate such concerns. As the Church in it's history, (I should add properly understood not the Jack Chic or evangelical version of that history), has never had such problems, the appeal is lacking because there is no need. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to give us all the answers about everything.
That is one advantage of belonging to a Church which claims to have both Tradition and a teaching Authority to support the proper understanding of Scripture. As opposed to having only the Bible alone and feeling the need to explain how one's understanding of it must be congruent with science and what science "reveals" to us.

 

[timewerx]

To tell the truth, after reading about six Steiner books I came away feeling like while he had some interesting notions regarding the synoptic problem the planetary evolutions seemed increasingly specious from the standpoint that his analysis of previous root races had some very strange characteristics. For example him arguing that the length of the life of planets and stars between pralayas was 7*7*2,160 years or 105.840 years. These 'rounds' greatly differ from carbon dating. The other problem is that typically in these systems it's claimed that we're the fifth root race of the planet, going in the order from first to last-most-recent Polar, Hyperborean, Lemurian, Atlantean. He starts with the Lemurians being on etheric life support and living on a lava-covered planet which then congeled in a very foggy planet for the Atlanteans. If we were to take carbon dating right that would be billions of years of Lemurians while the planet was red hot (exceeding their 15,120 alotted time by a few years give or take), really forgetting about the first two claimed races, and giving the Atlanteans a much smaller slice of time albeit whatever it was still much longer than the 15,120 alotted for them either I'm sure. In the end though it seems like Rudolph Steiner contradicted himself in a lot of ways that mutually exclude, and for me that takes any particular leg of his theory where that happened and amputates them.

What I'm getting from all the mystics - both Christian and other - running around out there who write such accounts of what they encounter when they try running around the akashic records is that these things have to be so dense with so much activity and such a counter-intuitive layout that most reasonable people can get incredibly lost in them and would have a heck of a time reasonably connecting one thing to another unless they spent years out there and counted everything as specious that they couldn't prove by some kind of physiological evidence on the earth.

As for the Gnostics, we may have some around here and I hope I'm not hurting their feelings but I strongly sense that they're the closest thing to a straw-man alternative to what Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism put together. Mike Heiser had a wonderful 7 hour debunk of the Da Vinci Code in which he went into Sethian, Valentinian, etc. schools of thought and examined them. The problem is - even studying the western mysteries as I am, Gnosticism seems incredibly spaceball. I see connections to Manichaeism but aside from that the whole premise barely seems in keeping with anything, even for mystic import it just kinda limps along. I tried reading the Pistis Sophia and it seemed to have all the same problems where the best I could do is see them philosophically playing with Psalms, playing with concepts of "What's bigger than bigger than bigger than...." etc., and anything that was in there that jived with other cultural beliefs seemed to be borrowed badly, including Sophia which.... I'm sorry..... she's Chokmah of Proverbs 8 if anything, perhaps additionally the great lady of Egypt to whom no man can see past her veil if one is willing to look in that direction, not an 'aeon' as far as I can tell. John Lash - interesting story teller but it seems like it's all tall tales when held out against history, lots of color but very little I can corroborate.

What I do think the early Catholic church may have practiced though is this - they were converting pagans rapidly by telling them, regarding their pantheons, "Oh, we have someone to pray to in that area too...and in that area....". Between the Blessed Mother, archangels, and communion of saints I really see something a lot like the Tree of Life - ie. the Alexandrian Jewish way of explaining to polytheists which aspects of God fit their different aspects of one God. It's a bit like a polytheism/monotheism AC/DC converter with ten spheres and twenty-two paths. True, Moshe de Leon was 12th century but Sefir Yetzirah was definitely contemporary with RCC and at it's youngest supposedly a 3rd century document. That kind of mysticism has field day with the Gospel of John but that's another story.

All you needed to do is to listen carefully to the Spirit.

The study of mysticism is in itself, a contradiction.

Mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How could something meant to be hidden be widely and freely available in just a few keystrokes or a short stroll to the bookstore? Those who are spreading these things are likely deceived themselves.

Even the Truth can pollute one's pure intentions if given at the wrong time. You can't just share what you have found. That's why Jesus spoke in parables. It's actually a wrong practice to explain to anyone what these parables meant. Ironically, many popular interpretation of these parables are wrong and often materialistic in context.

Why not Jesus came today instead of 2k years ago? Actually, why Jesus have not come way earlier so more souls would have been saved?? Why did Jesus asked some people not to spread the word about Him??

And here we are, eagerly looking for and spreading things that we or others don't need to hear yet...

That's why I don't claim to be part of anything in this world. Almost everyone got it wrong but a few. Almost everyone worship what they do not know.