I have mentioned Steiner several times. - I first heard of Anthroposophy in 1990. - I was then investigating - so to speak, - various paths - after having already started practicing “Zen” about five years earlier, - in order to choose the one that would assumably be the best for me. It is not that I had any trouble with “Zen”. But I left the university some time earlier and wanted to dedicate my life to the path, - so I had the thought of examining which way would be the best. [for me, that is]
- Then amongst other possibilities I came to hear of Anthroposophy and of Rudolf Steiner. - I wouldn’t call Anthroposophy a “way” at all. - A “way”, as I’d see it, - is or would be one which would lead to or arrive at enlightenment, - or rather, perhaps more accurately, - pass through it. The custom in the house of Master Dogen may be not to use the word, - but I do need to here.
- Anthroposophy, as presented - rather, - leads to initiation. It is not the same. The main point I wanted to relate to, here, is, perhaps, - that in all of Rudolf Steiner’s truly quite endless written books and given lectures - what is quite clearly the most significant phenomenon ever existing in the universe, - namely “enlightenment”, - as it is most commonly referred to, - is altogether and completely apparently absent. - It is as if he has never heard of it. - It is not comprehensible. How could it be? - He seems to be of so much knowledge, - so much that this phenomenon too of him being so knowledgeable does occur to a person as an unusual thing not normally encountered, - of an enormous variety of phenomena existing in this physical world and most extensively elsewhere in other spheres too, - even if in actuality quite clearly wrong at certain points.* - But within all of his so extensive references to perhaps almost anything you can think of, (and not little of what you would not necessarily think of as a practical fact) just the main point, - as it seems, - is never there. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not at all aware in general of its existence. That is while in other paths, - such as Yoga or “Zen” or DAT - it might be said to be just the central point, - though of course those who are so fortunate as to arrive at it are very few.
- Not being aware of it would mean too, of course, - not being aware of its absence within Steiner’s references and descriptions as referred to here.
- As I said prior to this whole long note above here, - the question here is how could it be? - I never came across anything similar to an explanation. - Shlomo Kalo says Steiner is wrong. I don’t doubt that. - I happened to relate to that here, in a blog comment somewhere. (- Hebrew only, - both the blog and the comment there) But even if so, - it still does not eliminate the obscurity of the fact I was questioning about. (What I am saying regarding what Kalo says is mainly off things he has written or said to me personally. I have never been a member of the school he established, (- “דע"ת” in Hebrew, - written “DAT” in English) I was not among his students, - but I did meet him several times (Oct ’90, Feb ’94, June ’96, Feb 2001) and have been corresponding with him over the mail over a period. I never came across an explicit reference to Anthroposophy in his books (though there are many of them I did not read) though at one place his reference to “esoteric intellectuals” is clearly speaking of Anthroposophists. (He there denies Steiner’s assertion that man had to fall) One point he finds significant is that Jesus was enlightened since birth, - which Steiner of course could never mention if he never makes any reference to the phenomenon of enlightenment at all. - But Kalo never referred to this point of the absence of this phenomenon within Steiner’s teaching as pointed here. (- Not that I came across, anyway, - that is) - See footnote as well.†)
As for the next issue - from here through the four paragraphs beginning with the current one here, - I am saying before I continue, - in case you dislike a point added there, or possibly doubt it, - or are unhappy with it or find it troublesome in some way, - than you could just ignore it. - It could be done without and I don’t want it to become an interference to the main issue as already clarified.
- That which is known as “enlightenment” is what Buddhism leads to, - as other paths. The quality of what may be referred to as “Buddhahood” is that of being enlightened. - Jesus was referring to it as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of Heaven”. There is no such place as “the kingdom of God”. It refers to a state of one who attained Buddhahood.‡ Yoga of course leads to it too and observe it as its explicit aim. It is quite clear that Jesus never meant to be very clear about this at the time. - Still in Luke 17:20-21 you could find his words - “the kingdom of God will not come with the observation of eyes. - Nor will they say here-it-is here or there-it-is there for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.”.§ - Obviously, - the fact of these expressions expressing what they do is not yet known within the Christian churches today. It is Kalo who says they mean what they do and I am relying on him saying what I do, though I am quite certain anyone who has come to the same achievement (just the one the-absence-of-in-the-references-of-Steiner is discussed here) would or could affirm this point as well. (It is not something Kalo just happens to say somewhere but a rather solid reference within his teaching)
- Not so long ago I came across this lecture of Steiner having to do with the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear from it that he was not aware of what the words “your kingdom” there do mean. - I am mentioning this of course because they are referring to just the central missing point I was talking about, - the request in the prayer asking for the kingdom to come is for the arrival at it.
- As I said, if it is this particular last statement about Rudolf Steiner being wrong you observe as an obstacle or you severely-disagree-with in a way which could interfere with any chance of making any comment answering my main query presented here in this post, - (- that is in case one does have any intention of that, - of course) - than just put it aside. You could just forget this issue here. - Beside that it may be particularly very difficult to support the issue, I could just address one to Kalo’s books, - but most of these are in Hebrew, not many have been translated. Also I don’t particularly remember where does he speak of the issue, these are not things I read recently, - though generally it ought to be repeated continuously various times there. (- You can find another reference to who Kalo himself is here, he was of course not widely known as Steiner is today)
- Now at the bottom line of this post, - if anyone (reading this that is) could actually refer to the question in question, - could let me know or explain why or how is it that Rudolf Steiner apparently** never mentions or relates to the phenomenon I referred to known-as-“enlightenment”-in-eastern-paths, -†† in spite of his so-extensive references to almost anything you can think about, - (and particularly of course within that to spiritual development as a central issue) in his books he has written and lectures he has given, - than do let me know.
- I do not have a way of contacting me through e-mail at the blog, - no “contact me” option, - but do write at the comments section. - I would perhaps temporarily add a “contact me” had it been necessary, but I’ll be sending e-mail messages to many who might be able to comment so they’ll have the e-mail address anyway. Also I prefer to have the comments (assuming there will be any) openly here at the blog. Besides traffic here is so low I do not have much reason to expect other potential commentators else than those mentioned. One other note, - the post was initially written on a file as you can find here. The post as it was before being rewritten here (comments can only be posted here under the post, not there) and the original as written initially for that here. The way it is on PDF is better generally but the difference is not supposed to be significant. (I can’t just copy it as it is into the blog, the editing features are not the same, not anything you can do on a “Word” you can also do here, but it does not mean changing the text)
___________________
- Then amongst other possibilities I came to hear of Anthroposophy and of Rudolf Steiner. - I wouldn’t call Anthroposophy a “way” at all. - A “way”, as I’d see it, - is or would be one which would lead to or arrive at enlightenment, - or rather, perhaps more accurately, - pass through it. The custom in the house of Master Dogen may be not to use the word, - but I do need to here.
- Anthroposophy, as presented - rather, - leads to initiation. It is not the same. The main point I wanted to relate to, here, is, perhaps, - that in all of Rudolf Steiner’s truly quite endless written books and given lectures - what is quite clearly the most significant phenomenon ever existing in the universe, - namely “enlightenment”, - as it is most commonly referred to, - is altogether and completely apparently absent. - It is as if he has never heard of it. - It is not comprehensible. How could it be? - He seems to be of so much knowledge, - so much that this phenomenon too of him being so knowledgeable does occur to a person as an unusual thing not normally encountered, - of an enormous variety of phenomena existing in this physical world and most extensively elsewhere in other spheres too, - even if in actuality quite clearly wrong at certain points.* - But within all of his so extensive references to perhaps almost anything you can think of, (and not little of what you would not necessarily think of as a practical fact) just the main point, - as it seems, - is never there. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not at all aware in general of its existence. That is while in other paths, - such as Yoga or “Zen” or DAT - it might be said to be just the central point, - though of course those who are so fortunate as to arrive at it are very few.
- Not being aware of it would mean too, of course, - not being aware of its absence within Steiner’s references and descriptions as referred to here.
[- Here a certain note may be inevitable, - though at the same time it may apparently seem so obvious its necessity would be severely questionable.
- In Steiner’s perhaps-most-known book - “Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment” - (- “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?”) in part II there, - “the stages of initiation” - the second of these [stages] is referred to as “enlightenment”.
I recall coming across it earlier as “illumination”. I do not remember when. Obviously these are just two translations of the same German word I do not know. I initially read the book in Hebrew where also it would be the same word. - One reason which made me rewrite this post is coming across it as “enlightenment” rather than “illumination” on the Rudolf Steiner Archive site after having already written the post at first. - I then just related to the issue (of this note here) in one last sentence at the end of the post.
- I don’t know where I might have seen it as “illumination” plus I don’t think it is of real importance here. Though as that it seemed more clear to me that Steiner never meant to refer here to the phenomenon I was referring to.
- However, - either way, - this does not change the situation regarding this point I was referring to: - the fact I came across it as “illumination” is altogether meaningless but still - I do not see any doubt or any room for doubt that Steiner never had any intention to imply for this to be the central aim of other paths as referred to above and as again indicated below. It could not be that he had any intention - when writing about this stage to initiation in this book mentioned above, - to mean that this - which he apparently happened to call by the same name, - is as well the same thing I am writing with regard to here, and which is mostly known these days in the occident too as “enlightenment”.
- We ought to remember too, that, at the time the book was written, Yoga or “Zen” or Buddhism in general have not yet appeared in America or Europe as they have only several decades later, and that the word referred to, - therefore - was not yet known as it is today in its main meaning, - and this would mean that at the time the book had been written the thought of the possibility of this dual meaning would not necessarily occur.
- However, - even disregarding what I said here just now about what may (or may not) have been the intention in the use of the word (whatever it is in German) as brought initially by Rudolf Steiner in his book, (and one might guess elsewhere too) it does seem practically as obvious as possible that this-to-which-he-is-referring could never in any way be the phenomenon I was questioning about the-absence-of within his guidance and presentation-of-reality.
- I do hope this will not be in need of argumentation.
- Clearly, - the two are not even close.
- This is why I said at the beginning this whole note here may be in practice altogether unnecessary. - But I am not an Anthroposophist and I do not live or abide in Anthroposophic circles or meet Anthroposophists normally or regularly in my everyday life, - so I have no direct knowledge of the actual situation regarding the issue: - As I said, it is practically quite unclear to me whether all I’m saying here would be considered so obvious in a way which would make this long note here nothing but a silly and unnecessary inconfident addition to the main point, - or - whether - on the other hand, - readers among Anthroposophists might not even find it so easy accept what I am saying. I will not argue. I do hate to bring up all so-well-known references to what the thing is and how absolute and ineffable it is, - while as-far-as-I-recall Steiner is referring to some ability of projecting occult light onto objects in order for one to be able to see them.
- Obviously overlooking this point of this remark added here would deny all meaning of the whole piece written here. Assuming there has been a point in the first place and I wasn’t trying to clarify what has never been unclear anyway to you or other readers here.
Either way.]
- In Steiner’s perhaps-most-known book - “Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment” - (- “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?”) in part II there, - “the stages of initiation” - the second of these [stages] is referred to as “enlightenment”.
I recall coming across it earlier as “illumination”. I do not remember when. Obviously these are just two translations of the same German word I do not know. I initially read the book in Hebrew where also it would be the same word. - One reason which made me rewrite this post is coming across it as “enlightenment” rather than “illumination” on the Rudolf Steiner Archive site after having already written the post at first. - I then just related to the issue (of this note here) in one last sentence at the end of the post.
- I don’t know where I might have seen it as “illumination” plus I don’t think it is of real importance here. Though as that it seemed more clear to me that Steiner never meant to refer here to the phenomenon I was referring to.
- However, - either way, - this does not change the situation regarding this point I was referring to: - the fact I came across it as “illumination” is altogether meaningless but still - I do not see any doubt or any room for doubt that Steiner never had any intention to imply for this to be the central aim of other paths as referred to above and as again indicated below. It could not be that he had any intention - when writing about this stage to initiation in this book mentioned above, - to mean that this - which he apparently happened to call by the same name, - is as well the same thing I am writing with regard to here, and which is mostly known these days in the occident too as “enlightenment”.
- We ought to remember too, that, at the time the book was written, Yoga or “Zen” or Buddhism in general have not yet appeared in America or Europe as they have only several decades later, and that the word referred to, - therefore - was not yet known as it is today in its main meaning, - and this would mean that at the time the book had been written the thought of the possibility of this dual meaning would not necessarily occur.
- However, - even disregarding what I said here just now about what may (or may not) have been the intention in the use of the word (whatever it is in German) as brought initially by Rudolf Steiner in his book, (and one might guess elsewhere too) it does seem practically as obvious as possible that this-to-which-he-is-referring could never in any way be the phenomenon I was questioning about the-absence-of within his guidance and presentation-of-reality.
- I do hope this will not be in need of argumentation.
- Clearly, - the two are not even close.
- This is why I said at the beginning this whole note here may be in practice altogether unnecessary. - But I am not an Anthroposophist and I do not live or abide in Anthroposophic circles or meet Anthroposophists normally or regularly in my everyday life, - so I have no direct knowledge of the actual situation regarding the issue: - As I said, it is practically quite unclear to me whether all I’m saying here would be considered so obvious in a way which would make this long note here nothing but a silly and unnecessary inconfident addition to the main point, - or - whether - on the other hand, - readers among Anthroposophists might not even find it so easy accept what I am saying. I will not argue. I do hate to bring up all so-well-known references to what the thing is and how absolute and ineffable it is, - while as-far-as-I-recall Steiner is referring to some ability of projecting occult light onto objects in order for one to be able to see them.
- Obviously overlooking this point of this remark added here would deny all meaning of the whole piece written here. Assuming there has been a point in the first place and I wasn’t trying to clarify what has never been unclear anyway to you or other readers here.
Either way.]
- As I said prior to this whole long note above here, - the question here is how could it be? - I never came across anything similar to an explanation. - Shlomo Kalo says Steiner is wrong. I don’t doubt that. - I happened to relate to that here, in a blog comment somewhere. (- Hebrew only, - both the blog and the comment there) But even if so, - it still does not eliminate the obscurity of the fact I was questioning about. (What I am saying regarding what Kalo says is mainly off things he has written or said to me personally. I have never been a member of the school he established, (- “דע"ת” in Hebrew, - written “DAT” in English) I was not among his students, - but I did meet him several times (Oct ’90, Feb ’94, June ’96, Feb 2001) and have been corresponding with him over the mail over a period. I never came across an explicit reference to Anthroposophy in his books (though there are many of them I did not read) though at one place his reference to “esoteric intellectuals” is clearly speaking of Anthroposophists. (He there denies Steiner’s assertion that man had to fall) One point he finds significant is that Jesus was enlightened since birth, - which Steiner of course could never mention if he never makes any reference to the phenomenon of enlightenment at all. - But Kalo never referred to this point of the absence of this phenomenon within Steiner’s teaching as pointed here. (- Not that I came across, anyway, - that is) - See footnote as well.†)
As for the next issue - from here through the four paragraphs beginning with the current one here, - I am saying before I continue, - in case you dislike a point added there, or possibly doubt it, - or are unhappy with it or find it troublesome in some way, - than you could just ignore it. - It could be done without and I don’t want it to become an interference to the main issue as already clarified.
- That which is known as “enlightenment” is what Buddhism leads to, - as other paths. The quality of what may be referred to as “Buddhahood” is that of being enlightened. - Jesus was referring to it as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of Heaven”. There is no such place as “the kingdom of God”. It refers to a state of one who attained Buddhahood.‡ Yoga of course leads to it too and observe it as its explicit aim. It is quite clear that Jesus never meant to be very clear about this at the time. - Still in Luke 17:20-21 you could find his words - “the kingdom of God will not come with the observation of eyes. - Nor will they say here-it-is here or there-it-is there for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.”.§ - Obviously, - the fact of these expressions expressing what they do is not yet known within the Christian churches today. It is Kalo who says they mean what they do and I am relying on him saying what I do, though I am quite certain anyone who has come to the same achievement (just the one the-absence-of-in-the-references-of-Steiner is discussed here) would or could affirm this point as well. (It is not something Kalo just happens to say somewhere but a rather solid reference within his teaching)
- Not so long ago I came across this lecture of Steiner having to do with the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear from it that he was not aware of what the words “your kingdom” there do mean. - I am mentioning this of course because they are referring to just the central missing point I was talking about, - the request in the prayer asking for the kingdom to come is for the arrival at it.
- As I said, if it is this particular last statement about Rudolf Steiner being wrong you observe as an obstacle or you severely-disagree-with in a way which could interfere with any chance of making any comment answering my main query presented here in this post, - (- that is in case one does have any intention of that, - of course) - than just put it aside. You could just forget this issue here. - Beside that it may be particularly very difficult to support the issue, I could just address one to Kalo’s books, - but most of these are in Hebrew, not many have been translated. Also I don’t particularly remember where does he speak of the issue, these are not things I read recently, - though generally it ought to be repeated continuously various times there. (- You can find another reference to who Kalo himself is here, he was of course not widely known as Steiner is today)
- Now at the bottom line of this post, - if anyone (reading this that is) could actually refer to the question in question, - could let me know or explain why or how is it that Rudolf Steiner apparently** never mentions or relates to the phenomenon I referred to known-as-“enlightenment”-in-eastern-paths, -†† in spite of his so-extensive references to almost anything you can think about, - (and particularly of course within that to spiritual development as a central issue) in his books he has written and lectures he has given, - than do let me know.
- I do not have a way of contacting me through e-mail at the blog, - no “contact me” option, - but do write at the comments section. - I would perhaps temporarily add a “contact me” had it been necessary, but I’ll be sending e-mail messages to many who might be able to comment so they’ll have the e-mail address anyway. Also I prefer to have the comments (assuming there will be any) openly here at the blog. Besides traffic here is so low I do not have much reason to expect other potential commentators else than those mentioned. One other note, - the post was initially written on a file as you can find here. The post as it was before being rewritten here (comments can only be posted here under the post, not there) and the original as written initially for that here. The way it is on PDF is better generally but the difference is not supposed to be significant. (I can’t just copy it as it is into the blog, the editing features are not the same, not anything you can do on a “Word” you can also do here, but it does not mean changing the text)
___________________
* (Steiner himself too does states the possibility of wrongness, I think)
† - Kalo never really made it very clear what it is that Steiner is wrong about. - To me that is. - It is not that he avoided the question, - but generally issues discussed in meetings or our correspondence were those having to do with me, naturally, - and the matter referred to here was not generally a central one in this manner, - so the concrete question did not come up. (- Also in answering letters he normally seemed to be of the habit of writing very short answers, always one page, rather small, in a somewhat large handwriting usually) He died on the 30th of August, 2014.
‡ Steiner, as far as I have come across, uses the word Buddha in a different sense or meaning, - it is not wrong or untrue but it may be said to be the secondary meaning of the word, - the primary or first one is as I referred.
§ (- You might also see Matthew 20:20-23)
** - I have never read all of his writings or lecturing, - needless to say perhaps, - far from that as you might guess, - but the fact is quite clear and seems to be very easily noticeable.
†† - Btw, - Kalo’s teaching is not of the eastern paths, - though relying on continuous meditation as in some of these, - but is Christian oriented.
† - Kalo never really made it very clear what it is that Steiner is wrong about. - To me that is. - It is not that he avoided the question, - but generally issues discussed in meetings or our correspondence were those having to do with me, naturally, - and the matter referred to here was not generally a central one in this manner, - so the concrete question did not come up. (- Also in answering letters he normally seemed to be of the habit of writing very short answers, always one page, rather small, in a somewhat large handwriting usually) He died on the 30th of August, 2014.
‡ Steiner, as far as I have come across, uses the word Buddha in a different sense or meaning, - it is not wrong or untrue but it may be said to be the secondary meaning of the word, - the primary or first one is as I referred.
§ (- You might also see Matthew 20:20-23)
** - I have never read all of his writings or lecturing, - needless to say perhaps, - far from that as you might guess, - but the fact is quite clear and seems to be very easily noticeable.
†† - Btw, - Kalo’s teaching is not of the eastern paths, - though relying on continuous meditation as in some of these, - but is Christian oriented.
