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.
8 comments:
Unlike at the time I first came to write this post, - perhaps, - it seems to me now or I am getting the impression that Anthroposophists do not know what the term “enlightenment” means when referred to originally in other paths such as Yoga or Buddhism. - I referred to this in the long remark in the post itself but there too I did not think it a necessity to practically clarify this meaning since elsewhere (i.e. not in Anthroposophy) it is such a fundamental thing. Rudolf Steiner does use the word in a different meaning but (as said in the post itself) this is altogether irrelevant to the issue there. - I was aware of a possibility of confusion but not necessarily of unawareness of the actual meaning of the term even after pointing to the fact it is not what Steiner refers to when using this word. For reference and clarification at first hand one might refer to this book which has been translated to English. - There would be of course many others but this is one I know plus it refers to this mentioned point very clearly and explicitly. Following a short correspondence with the only person who has so far gone to the trouble of making some reference to my post (through e-mail) the point about which this remark here is made has become quite clear. So far for now.
To be correct I ought to refer to my above words: Actually there was another person having written me an e-mail message on the 19, (of this month) but I only opened the mail on the 21 after writing the above, - so I did not know of it at the time. Quite unimportant it seems, - but as my words were untrue retrospectively it seems better corrected here.
I sent a link to this post to quite a few people. - At the time I wrote this post I was quite unaware of the fact, - as it seems, - that Anthroposophists, - people engaged in Anthroposophy or practicing it, - practically do not know what is referred to by the word “enlightenment”. - No disrespect to Steiner but the thing he is referring to by this word is totally irrelevant here. I referred to this at length in the post itself, - I don’t mean he is wrong - of course, - is this usage, - but its importance is never coming near the fundamental aim of other lines of practice as widely known there. - I did say in the post itself - “I do hate to bring up all so-well-known references to what the thing is and how absolute and ineffable it is” - plus in the long remark there I repeated my concern that all I’m saying is unnecessary since All know it anyway. This is not so. - After having some communication with two Anthroposophists who did go to the trouble of making some reply by e-mail I seem to understand that in general this phenomenon never mentioned (in general, or perhaps absolutely) in Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophical assays and lectures is practically altogether unfamiliar - even as a general concept or idea as far as I seem to understand, - to those in the Anthroposophical field following its path.
- So this “comment” here is to refer to what enlightenment is. Those having arrived at it make the point that it is ineffable. Steiner speaks of body, soul and spirit. It may be that we might speak of body, soul, spirit and the Reality. That which is referred to as “Brahman” (or “Ishvara”) in Hindu, which Lao Tse called “Tao”, which is referred to as the reality or the absolute or perhaps sometimes as just “it” in the “Zen” branch of Buddhism today, - and which Jesus was speaking of (as I mentioned in the post) as the Father in Heaven. Sometimes the words “mind” or “self” (as in “original mind” or “original self”) are used too by some. - Though for example Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) who is one who has clearly arrived at the state [of “enlightenment”] repeatedly makes the point that the enlightened does not have a mind at all.
- It is not easy to say what it is. Particularly for one who is not yet there and is relying upon the words of others. Still, - it is said to be the arrival at something which is beyond (or prior to) the “higher worlds”. In “Zen” the expression “teacher (or variably “master”, or “counsellor”) to human beings and gods” is used sometimes as to indicate it is not merely attaining “knowledge of higher worlds” or an ability to function within them. It is said that the enlightened does not have an “I” at all. Kalo makes quite an emphasis in the book I linked above of this point. One who has come to this achievement is one with the reality I referred to above. As for as I understand there is no more independent existence. - Though it is also said to be the attainment of ultimate redemption. - In Yoga - it is quite famous, - the state is come to after the “kundalini” is able to climb up to the seventh chakra - the Sahasrara chakra, - after previously having brought to action the six chakras (or lotus flowers) below it. - Kalo refers to “the light of the ultimate” breaking up off the lower centre “in an imperceptible speed” and awakening all seven centres at the moment of enlightenment. This seems to be closely related to the fact that Steiner only refers to six centres in his book. It is to be an ultimate achievement. Else than the book I linked there is also this book but it is only in Hebrew. Obviously one has to hear of it from one who knows it directly, - but I am bringing here a brief reference as to generally illuminate what the subject is.
- One who has arrived at it is clearly clairvoyant but it is not the same thing known as “initiation”. (Though almost all initiates I do know of were enlightened too)
In Christianity - else than Jesus himself - St. Paul, - Francis of Assisi, - Julian of Norwich and Peter Deunov were also men and a woman who have arrived at it.
Rudolf Steiner says about the initiate that knowledge flow to him from within, - Shlomo Kalo says about the enlightened person that he has come to attaine all knowledge, - that the desire for knowledge has been ultimately - finally - been put off, - due to of having come to being fully satisfied, and not due to any other reason.
(comments are limited to 4,096 characters so I had to split it into two)
Hi Ran,
I saw your comment in Tomer's blog and followed you here.
I will try to refer to some points from your post.
My apologies for not being able to do it in an orderly manner at this point.
Indeed, the concept of enlightenment as the final destination of human development is not used in Anthroposophy.
I urge you to reread the chapter named "The Greater Guardian of the Threshold" in the book "Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its Attainment" where the meeting of the initiate with the Christ being is described, starting with these words:
“Thou hast released thyself from the world of the senses. Thou hast won the right to become a citizen of the supersensible world, whence thine activity can now be directed.
For thine own sake, thou dost no longer require thy physical body in its present form. If thine intention were merely to acquire the faculties necessary for life in the supersensible world, thou needest no longer return to the sense-world.
But now behold me. See how sublimely I tower above all that thou hast made of thyself thus far....."
When elaborating on the stages of Christian and Rosicrucian initiations steiner always stops before the highest stage and claims that there is no use discussing it at all, since even its understanding demands the ability to "think" without the physical brain.
Does he refer to what you term enlightenment?
Not necessarily. It is very clear from his writings that he believes that the level of spirituality attainable after Christ was never possible before Christ.
If by Enlightenment you mean the overcoming of the need to incarnate again, Steiner fully recognizes the Budha as one who achieved this High level of spiritual development.
If by enlightenment you mean the complete absence of concerns and activity, then according to Steiner, the Budha himself was, and is, extremely concerned and actively involved with the development of the human race After his enlightenment.
However, since what Steiner calls the Christ event, Budha's involvement in the history of the human race is Christian through and through.
He also refers to the highest Christian initiate as the close friend, and as the TEACHER of the Buddha. (Present tense).
This initiate chooses to reincarnate again and again once every century.
I have the utmost respect for Slomo Kalo and am very inspired by him to this day.
By no means do I think his words are the words of god or that even as a human he was flawless.
From several comments that he made on Steiner concepts in his books it is obvious that he pronounced judgment either without thoroughly understanding them/verifying their truth, or by deliberately twisting them.
By Kalo's standards himself, any of the above options will be considered a serious flow.
According to Steiner, Jesus, from birth until the baptism in the Jordan River was a highly developed human being. Not a god, not enlightened, and not even consciously initiated. (He was a very high initiate in previous incarnations).
At the baptism, this individuality left his human sheets and was replaced by the godhead for 3 years until the death on the cross and the resurrection.
Steiner sees Francis of Assisi as a very highly developed human being and a long-time disciple of the (now Christian) Budha. (spiritual discipleship, not one taking place in the physical world).
After his life as Francis of Assisi, Steiner said he was able to follow him to at least one incarnation where he died as a little boy at the age of 7.
This contradicts Kalo's definition of enlightenment and of Francis of Assisi as enlightened.
To all: - I have deleted a few comments here, you can find them if you search for this page on the Wayback Machine.
To the anonymous above: - First it seems to me that the URL you sent to my comment you referred to was wrong but having read my post the correct link is there which I did not remember.
I read the book you mentioned in Hebrew (as I mentioned in the post) quite a few years ago. - You quote: - “Thou hast won the right to become a citizen of the supersensible world, whence thine activity can now be directed”, - “If thine intention were merely to acquire the faculties necessary for life in the supersensible world, thou needest no longer return to the sense-world”. But fundamentally enlightenment (most clearly according to Kalo) is not about supersensible worlds or being a citizen of them. - It is about something beyond those. (Or prior to them)
- According to Steiner (correct me if I'm wrong) the highest achievement is the highest clairvoyance. - But what we are talking about here is to be something else, - it is about something inaccessible to any senses, - physical or higher. - The reference is to something which can be known only directly, - not through any means, - which is possible as far as I understand because it is just your own self.
- I did refer to this in an earlier comment, - “it is said to be the arrival at something which is beyond (or prior to) the ‘higher worlds’. In ‘Zen’ the expression ‘teacher (or variably ‘master’”, or ‘counsellor’) to human beings and gods’ is used sometimes as to indicate it is not merely attaining ‘knowledge of higher worlds’ or an ability to function within them.”. - Further, - it is said to be ineffable, - inaccessible to thought altogether as far as I understand, - not just to one unable to think without the brain.
It is not that enlightenment is the overcoming of the need to reincarnate again, - it is that initially incarnation is aimed at it, - so having arrived at it it is not necessary. I think the classic example of one who does incarnate still is the Dalai Lama, - who I think is said to have arrived at it about 500 or 600 years ago and is still reincarnating. (He has already announced that his next birth will be outside of China)
- Also I think it is worth mentioning that Kalo's teaching is Christian oriented (as I mentioned too) and not Buddhist or Hindi.
It is strange to me that you say Jesus was a very high initiate in previous incarnations. I thought he never incarnated before (or after) his life that we know. Please refer if you can.
I don't understand what you mean when you say that ‘the Buddha's involvement in the history of the human race is Christian through and through’.
I don't know any explicit references of Kalo to Steiner or to Anthroposophy in his books so I can not refer to these.
Also, - unequivocally, - Kalo states the enlightened is an inseparable part of godhead.
There is no issue of respect to the language of the blog, you can write in Hebrew if you like, - but most readers here will not be able to understand what you write then I think.
So far here.
Perhaps I should add, - enlightenment (I don't like so much using the word) is not to be categorised as relating to the east or west. It is prior to any religion. In the Jewish Bible Abraham and Job have arrived at it. What I said in the post could be put aside perhaps should not be like that. - It is the aim of the Lord's prayer. It is the kingdom mentioned there. When Jesus is saying to the mother of two of the apostles (Matthew 20:22) that she does not know what she is asking it is because this is what she is referring to. - When it is said in Matthew 11:27 that no one knows the father else than Jesus and those whom Jesus chooses to know him this “knowledge” is also (as far as I understand) the same thing. If you categorise the east may be characterised by wisdom and the west by love, while wisdom is already mature and love still in its early development, - but no phenomenon is as universal and as independent as this coming to know the foundation or the source or the origin and being freed of wrong conceptions and of confused ideas existing while the reality of yourself and everything else is not yet freely and directly noticed. In whichever worlds, supersensible or physical, - everything is still a phenomenon.
Perhaps I should add another remark: - Kalo says (and I am saying this because it is clear to me that every person who has been enlightened would say the same) he who is enlightened knows everything. He who is not knows nothing. He repeated it when I met him once three times. When I wrote to Nishijima that he said that Nishijima subsequently always added the title “Rev.” before his name when relating to him. - One who is not, - be him a saint, a prophet or a clairvoyant, - knows nothing. Almost all initiates I know of were enlightened too, - but Kalo himself mentions at least one exception. (I think it is Pope Callixtus I) According to him all is delusion else than what is related to in Christian terms as “the Father”. All worlds, - high or low, - as far as I understand. Also he asserts in an unequivocal manner that one who is enlightened can not have an “I”. - One who has an I is not enlightened and one who is enlightened does not have an I.
These things might have not been presented this way previously, - so particularly in subsequence to some exchange of comments here I wrote what I did here and am adding it, temporarily at least, - as I do, - here.
Post a Comment