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]
- 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 need to here.
- Anthroposophy, - rather, - leads to initiation. It is not the same. The main point I wanted to relate to here, is, perhaps, - that in all of Steiner’s quite endless writings and lecturing what is quite clearly the most significant phenomenon in the universe, - namely enlightenment, - is altogether absent. - It is as if he never heard of it. - It is not comprehensible. How could it be? He seems to be of so much knowledge, - a phenomenon somewhat strange in itself it may seem, - of phenomena existing in this world and extensively elsewhere, - even if (quite clearly) wrong at certain points. - But within all of his references to a lot of various phenomena and facts of what is going on in occult spheres, just the main point, - it seems, - is never there. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not aware at all in general of its existence.
- The question here is how could it be? - I never came across anything similar to an explanation. - Kalo says Steiner is wrong. I don’t doubt that. - I related to that here. (in Hebrew only) But even if so, - it still does not eliminate the obscurity of the fact I am writing about. I was told Steiner was a Rosicrucian. - I can’t verify for that but Wikipedia says Peter Deunov was a Rosicrucian too. - Still Deunov was enlightened, - Kalo says that in one of his books. - Assuming Wikipedia is right here this would generally seem to mean the order of the Rosicrucians did lead to the ultimate, - to what is referred to as “enlightenment”, though said to be ineffable. If so, this makes things somewhat (even) stranger than otherwise. - However, - it doesn’t change that much as for the issue. - Initiation is not enlightenment. One who has come to this achievement is not necessarily a Buddha. Jesus was referring to Buddhahood as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of Heaven”. - This fact is not yet known today in Christianity. - Jesus did not mean to be very clear about this at the time, - but still, - this is why he said “the kingdom of God will not come in eyes observation. - Nor will they say ‘here it is here’ or ‘there it is there’ for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.” (Luke 17:21) It is clear from this lecture of Steiner that he was not aware of the meaning of the expression (expressions) I referred to here. It is of course relevant to the general issue here since its meaning is just the thing I was referring to at first. - Some may not accept the idea that this expression repeated in the Bible (in the New Testment) does really mean what I say it does, - It is Kalo who says that. - I believe any true master who has arrived at the ineffable could affirm that too, but if you do not accept this than just ignore this point. It can be done without. - Nobody would deny the very existence of that which stands as the aim of paths such as Yoga or which Buddhism leads us to. (I mean no serious person, - of course materialists could deny everything)
- Now at the bottom line, - 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 (I never read all of his writings, or lecturing more correctly; - far from that, - but the fact is clear and apparently easily noticeable) never mentions or relates to the phenomenon known as “enlightenment” in eastern paths, - in spite of his so-extensive references to almost anything you can think about, - 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 now at the blog, - but do write at the comments section. - I might add a “contact me” later, but now I don’t have one on the blog. - Just one other note: - in case anyone might think the “illumination” Steiner writes about in “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment” (- “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?”) is what I am talking about, - than I could mention of course it is not it, - nothing near.
- 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 need to here.
- Anthroposophy, - rather, - leads to initiation. It is not the same. The main point I wanted to relate to here, is, perhaps, - that in all of Steiner’s quite endless writings and lecturing what is quite clearly the most significant phenomenon in the universe, - namely enlightenment, - is altogether absent. - It is as if he never heard of it. - It is not comprehensible. How could it be? He seems to be of so much knowledge, - a phenomenon somewhat strange in itself it may seem, - of phenomena existing in this world and extensively elsewhere, - even if (quite clearly) wrong at certain points. - But within all of his references to a lot of various phenomena and facts of what is going on in occult spheres, just the main point, - it seems, - is never there. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not aware at all in general of its existence.
- The question here is how could it be? - I never came across anything similar to an explanation. - Kalo says Steiner is wrong. I don’t doubt that. - I related to that here. (in Hebrew only) But even if so, - it still does not eliminate the obscurity of the fact I am writing about. I was told Steiner was a Rosicrucian. - I can’t verify for that but Wikipedia says Peter Deunov was a Rosicrucian too. - Still Deunov was enlightened, - Kalo says that in one of his books. - Assuming Wikipedia is right here this would generally seem to mean the order of the Rosicrucians did lead to the ultimate, - to what is referred to as “enlightenment”, though said to be ineffable. If so, this makes things somewhat (even) stranger than otherwise. - However, - it doesn’t change that much as for the issue. - Initiation is not enlightenment. One who has come to this achievement is not necessarily a Buddha. Jesus was referring to Buddhahood as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of Heaven”. - This fact is not yet known today in Christianity. - Jesus did not mean to be very clear about this at the time, - but still, - this is why he said “the kingdom of God will not come in eyes observation. - Nor will they say ‘here it is here’ or ‘there it is there’ for the kingdom of God is within yourselves.” (Luke 17:21) It is clear from this lecture of Steiner that he was not aware of the meaning of the expression (expressions) I referred to here. It is of course relevant to the general issue here since its meaning is just the thing I was referring to at first. - Some may not accept the idea that this expression repeated in the Bible (in the New Testment) does really mean what I say it does, - It is Kalo who says that. - I believe any true master who has arrived at the ineffable could affirm that too, but if you do not accept this than just ignore this point. It can be done without. - Nobody would deny the very existence of that which stands as the aim of paths such as Yoga or which Buddhism leads us to. (I mean no serious person, - of course materialists could deny everything)
- Now at the bottom line, - 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 (I never read all of his writings, or lecturing more correctly; - far from that, - but the fact is clear and apparently easily noticeable) never mentions or relates to the phenomenon known as “enlightenment” in eastern paths, - in spite of his so-extensive references to almost anything you can think about, - 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 now at the blog, - but do write at the comments section. - I might add a “contact me” later, but now I don’t have one on the blog. - Just one other note: - in case anyone might think the “illumination” Steiner writes about in “Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment” (- “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?”) is what I am talking about, - than I could mention of course it is not it, - nothing near.
