This post has been considerably modified off the one posted earlier. This was done between August 7th and 30th 2025. You can find the post as it was before here. Comments have been deleted since they were comments relating to the post as it was before and not to the current one, but you can find them still in the page linked above. - Some other comments which have been deleted earlier you can find here.
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 one 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 Dōgen may be not to use the word, - but I do need to here.
The main reason, - as it seems, - for me rewriting this post here - is for relating to what this “enlightenment” is. The issue of this post is about the absence of apparently any mentioning of it in Anthroposophy. - While at the same time Steiner is using the term (or a sufficiently close one) in his book “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?” - which is no doubt one of his most central and important ones, - for an altogether different thing. - It is best, to say the least, - that the concept will be related to by one who directly knows it of one’s own experience as an enlightened one, - but as we do not have one here at hand I will relate as follows: - There is one reality apart from which nothing exists. - Neither this world nor any other (“higher”) world exists. - Neither myself as the person writing this, - nor any of the readers in the same way, - nor Jesus Christ, nor the historical Buddha, - nor the sky above you, nor the Earth below. All is said to be delusion. - This reality can not be known through any senses, - neither physical ones as we commonly know in our every-day lives, - nor higher or more refined ones as utilized in other worlds by whichever beings residing there. - It can only be “known” directly, - by yourself without any means. - No tools will do. - One who has made it to this attainment of direct knowledge is the enlightened. It can never be reversed and it can never be repeated. - One who is there knows all else to delusion. - Since we have never been anything other than this reality it is also self knowledge. - All else is - as far as I understand - a dream of the reality, - imagination. - The reality, - as us, - is dreaming (or something of the sort) of all worlds, including this one, - and all that occurs within them. - It is said to be a perfect attainment. - There is nothing beyond it. - And one who has come to this direct incomparable state is no longer different or separate from the reality, - individual existence has died, - subsequently there is no “I” too.
I see a point in mentioning also that it is not a matter of East and West, though in Eastern paths there seem to be far more explicit and clear references to it. (I am saying this because Anthroposophists seem to be prone to refer in reply to this matter about which it is not)
The last two paragraphs here are the main reason why I am modifying this post. - It seems misunderstandings relating to the heart of the matter are not rare, - perhaps as an understatement, - while particularly just the point I am asking about causes the situation relating to it. - I have had some correspondence through e-mail following the post as it was, and also here in the comments section, which made me think it was better to rewrite things as to avoid persistent troublesome issues inclined to appear. - Being the central point it is likely that I will relate to it here again still.
- Anthroposophy, as presented - rather, - leads to initiation. There are still some further stages mentioned, as it seems, - but it is still never the less within the sphere - or the spheres - if you like - of phenomena, of delusion - that is; - there is not a reference to what I was relating to earlier. It is of course not the same.
- The point about which this post is is that in all of Rudolf Steiner’s truly quite endless volumes of written books and recorded given lectures - that which is quite clearly the most significant and important phenomenon (- if it can be so called; - but - anyway, - a stage of development) having ever existed in the universe, - namely - our aforementioned “enlightenment”, - as it is most commonly referred to, - seems to be altogether and completely absent. - It is as if he just has never heard of it. - It is practically incomprehensible. - How could it be? - Rudolf Steiner seems to be of such a great and inconceivable amount of knowledge, - to the extent this phenomenon as well of him being as knowledgeable as he is would naturally occur to a person as an unusual phenomenon in itself, - of an enormous variety of phenomena existing both in this physical world and most extensively elsewhere in other spheres too, - while I might suppose spiritual development would be significantly ever standing at the centre of this. - But within all of these so extensive references to perhaps about anything you might think of, (- and certainly not little of what you would not necessarily think of, - as a practical fact) just what is the main point, - as it seems, - is never there. It seems in Anthroposophy there is about everything, - omitting still the most important point. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not at all aware in general of its existence. (Perhaps particularly amongst other things because of Rudolf Steiner referring to what he does as “enlightenment” or “illumination” in his book I mentioned above) - That is while in other paths, - such as Yoga or “Zen” or DAT, - you might say it would naturally be just the number one point, - though of course those who are so fortunate as to arrive at it are very few.
- While one is not aware of the very existence of this incomparable peak of spiritual development, - this would mean too, no doubt, - one would not be aware of its absence within Rudolf Steiner’s writings and spoken words - as I referred to here in this post.
- So - as I said prior to these three paragraphs above, - the question here is - how could it be? - It is, apparently, - worthy of repeating. - How could it be that in all of Steiner’s so extensive references to spiritual development and fundamentally all that might surround it, - and as well to an inexhaustible variety of phenomena within different spheres, - going into details probably further than any other teacher you might think of, - still there is no mentioning to be found of what would clearly and inevitably be considered the of the most substantial core (to say the least, that is) of the path - or even of existence in itself - elsewhere? - I mean in the teachings and frameworks of other known existing paths?
He does speak of Yoga. He does speak of Buddhism. - These subjects are never in any way foreign to him. - While at the same time we are relating here to a thing (- I don’t know if it could or should be called a phenomenon, - since the reality itself is imperceptible to senses, and this is about its direct realization) which is to be categorized as one of the utmost importance. - He might deny any views he finds incorrect or misleading, - but totally ignoring the whole matter is incomprehensible. - Unless you might assume he simply does not know of it - which of course Anthroposophists will find a most unreasonable idea, - but even if he has no direct knowledge of it off personal experience - how could it be that he has not heard (or read) of it either? - It is really as strange as can be. - Again, - we are talking here about what nothing can come near, - going beyond (or practically underneath) all phenomena and eternally becoming free of the illusion of their actual existence, - the knowledge nothing can compare with and disclosure of the one secret no other can be in any way like.
- I don’t think I ever came across anything similar to an explanation. I don’t really think I will get one here. - People tend to adhere to their lines of accepted ideas and behaviour and sometime view such queries as here as an attack. - The post here has been on for over five years. - I don’t think I could very realistically hope for a worthwhile answer which will actually supply a rather full clarification for the unclear matter I raised. - But particularly since the question itself has not seemed to be noticed at all elsewhere - either within or outside of Anthroposophy, - I might guess its very mentioning is not without value.
I am getting the impression that Anthroposophists only seem to feed from within Anthroposophy, - which is perhaps natural, - but in such a situation - obviously - things as referred to here are not to be expected to be noticed.
- This may be the place to mention Shlomo Kalo says Steiner is wrong. Kalo is an Israeli teacher mentioned sometimes here on the blog. See the link to DAT publications on the right. - I will not relate to this at length since generally speaking I don’t know of an exact reference off him telling what exactly is the wrongness he is referring to. - I understand from a commentator on the blog that there are [explicit] references to Steiner or to Anthroposophy in some of Kalo’s books, but I don’t know these myself - not being familiar with most of his more recent books. (- Since about year 2,000 I guess)
- Still, - I made some comment of the matter here. (Hebrew only)
- Since, as I already somewhat mentioned, one may be likely to receive in reply references to differences between Christianity and Buddhism, or generally perhaps Western and Eastern paths or attitudes, - I find it necessary to state as explicitly as possible: - The issue is not of that. - Enlightenment is prior to all these. - According to Kalo - in case I do not somehow misinterpret - it is not only what the human being exists for the purpose of – (though I would add - if any) but that all worlds (which so ever) never came to be for any other reason. - However, - even without this last assertion perhaps, - in spite of the fact it is true that it is clearer related to in Eastern paths and that also it is more centrally spoken of there, - being what it is it is still at the root of Christianity too. Both Job and Abraham were enlightened according to Kalo, while the binding of Isaac took place for this purpose too.
I recently had a post on relating to just this, - https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2025/07/enlightenment-in-new-testament.html, - I there related to the matter. - In the Lord’s Prayer the Kingdom mentioned is no other than this. - This is one point where it is particularly clear. Steiner says something else, - I know.
- When Jesus speaks of knowing the Father this is another way (quite natural for him and for his line of speech as we know it) of relating to the same thing again. - “The Father” is what Jesus called the reality I was speaking about. - In accordance with the existing mentality of the audience at the time and at the place, - quite clearly. - In Hindu it is known as “Brahman”. (Or “Ishvara” as well)
Being the most fundamental thing nothing can compete with, - it would be ever mentioned by different individuals who have come to realize it.
Lao Tse called it Tao. Since it is what all forms rely on it might be presented is very different ways - even as to make different references not even be similar. - The post is long, - you can check it where it is. I see no point in going into all that is there here too, - but the point is unquestionable and positive, - enlightenment - though not called by this name, - is not absent in Christianity. It is quite obviously true that Jesus dis not mean to be as clear about the matter as explicit frequent expressions in Yoga or Buddhism, - and even today in the Christian churches knowledge of the matter has not emerged, - but just the same the Kingdom of God is there, - even if unrevealed as it is.
- Kalo asserts that Jesus was enlightened from birth, - he sees great meaning and significance in this, - though I don’t know why.
- It also seems to be true that the number of those arriving at the achievement within their lifetime, - within Christianity, - would be much smaller than in Eastern paths. - Unlike those getting there on their depart from the physical plain, - I mean, - but I can not say this for sure.
- As I somewhat related to perhaps, - an initiate is not necessarily enlightened. I recall Kalo relating to one example, - of whom he is saying is one of the significant or outstanding initiates of the Christian church, - I think he is referring to Pope Callixtus I. - Initiation is still within the sphere of delusion, of form, - of creation if you like. - More refined, more subtle, - however great still, - but never the less not altogether knowing what it is that lies prior to any such thing, to any phenomenon.- Enlightenment is about arriving at what is not within any spheres of any worlds, - however high I mean. Any other thing would not be like this, - there is only one enlightenment.
- I would add here another reference to a thing likely to arise in response to things here: - Steiner speaks of things which could only be understood by one whose thinking is no longer dependant on the brain. At the same time I recall Steiner’s idea or attitude according to which nothing could exceed the boundaries of thought. - The first point here might be raised by Anthroposophists as to excuse the total absence of any reference to enlightenment as I am writing about here. - So it may be necessary to point that it is not that it is mentioned but not further referred to or clarified, - but rather as if it never existed. - It is a significantly different thing, - no doubt I believe.
- As for the other point, - judging by what those who have actually arrived at the state are saying we might say that neither enlightenment nor the reality could be known by the thinking. - It will not do. - The issue is not said to be a matter of being free of a dependence on the brain. No matter high a clairvoyant may be, - if he (or she) is not enlightened the reality will not be known. - I have mentioned before an initiate Kalo is clarifying with regard to that he was not enlightened, - further he seems to practically actually make clear that the person referred to was not at all aware of the existence of enlightenment in itself. - How could this be? - I am not among the inhabitants of Heaven. - Should I attempt to try and say something here I might say that for thought to try and fathom what the reality is, - while we know that one who has crossed this barrier in the enlightened - is like - were we to liken thought to a tube one is looking through, - for this tube to bend and look at its own origin. - I would say it is not possible for thought to clarify and understand its own origin. I said the reality could only be known directly. For this purpose it would be necessary for thought to fade, to dissolve, - so that the reality which just yourself is could be simply seen. - It is not possible to conclude of what-it-is through step by step thinking processes relying on mental pictures acquired in any world. - There is no such thing as a mental picture of the reality. It cannot be accommodated in a self conscious mind. - I would say that for the reality itself there are no thinking processes. It knows itself and there is no other thing to be known. So no need for thought exists. - The principle of thinking is of finding out of what you don’t know off what you do. If nothing is hidden there is no place for it.
- For thinking to be able to tell what the reality is is like for a building to be able to support its own foundations. - Figuring out what it is off any knowledge of any phenomenon in any world seems to be like knowing the clear blue sky off picture of clouds only. - It is what dreams of all we know - as far as I understand - as long as not enlightened we know nothing but this dream, - we cannot tell of the dreamer until we wake up. Higher worlds are still within this dream. Within this bubble. - It is not reality.
- Perhaps I should make one reluctance: - The working on “Zen” koans, as practiced in the Rinzai branch, does seem to be indeed some sort of a thinking process. - Does this contradict the above? - I would say that it is not that you learn of what the reality is within this work, - but rather that it brings you so close to it that in a flash in the right moment you will see it. Even if we can’t learn of the essential substance of the true reality by thinking - relying on what we acquire within the dream we live in, - we can still learn of our ignorance, - while when this comes so close to be completed the truth may be revealed.
Anyway, - the point in the last three paragraphs is about thinking altogether being unable to lead us to a real (not intellectual or conceptual) knowledge of what the original reality is, - which would actually be the same as understanding enlightenment. - I do not find it so possible to tell exactly why no acquaintance with any phenomena [- however “high” or however refined] dwelling within the spheres all arising from the reality referred to, - could lead us, through any conclusion within our abilities, to understand and know what lies below - what it is off which it all [as if] came to be. - It is like a table perhaps upon which all is put, - and the objects lying there can not tell us of the table itself. - I believe the first root of delusion is in so called self consciousness, - the doubled mind, - the “second moon” in “Zen”, - then space and whatever may be within it could follow, - but in order to tell why from within the boundary of the view of the self-conscious person one cannot fathom what is prior to it, - the reality before any appearance of self consciousness, - it seems to take one who has already solved the mystery, - and this one as well would probably not be able to express it either.
- Still it could no doubt be said - as already mentioned - that enlightenment is just about unveiling what no mystery can compare with. Waking up is not like understanding things within your dream.
- What has not been said yet? - I have actually written in way I usually wouldn’t because of possibly expected mistakes and misunderstandings. Things are not usually said and repeated as here. - Some things need to be figured out without such expression as here. - But I might have had no choice in this case.
- Still, - as an ending statement I might still mention that the state of the enlightened is as clearly as possible what Yoga is explicitly aimed at. - It is just as well what Buddhism is leading to. - The reality referred to as “Brahman” is just the same which Jesus called the Father. - It is also called the self, - or the absolute or the reality. - For whichever reason Jesus did not choose to clarify himself with regard to his “Kingdom of God” (or “Kingdom of Heaven) as done in the East. - It seems such clarifications would have been quite foreign to Judaism within which he landed at the time. - But particularly while the same aim is that of other teachings too - anyway, - it is what inevitably any path formed by one who has arrived at the ultimate truth would go.
So at the bottom line of this post, - if anyone reading this could actually refer to the question in question, - and let me know or explain why or how is it that Rudolf Steiner seems to never at all mention or relate to what is known as “enlightenment” in Eastern paths, and elsewhere too, - that is in his books and lectures given, - than please let me know.
Please refer at the comments section. Had you not checked you might check the note at the top. - Since comments on posts older than 90 days are not seen unless I approve them, - you could also leave an e-mail address in such a comment and I will delete it if you wish so that your address will not be published. - Do note that I do not very frequently check the blog.
- One last other note, which could stand either way: - Normally seven chakras (or lotus flowers or mind centres) are mentioned. - So in Yoga, in esoteric Buddhism I believe, - in Kalo’s writings, - and even in Theosophy off which Anthroposophy has split. - Steiner, - in his book mentioned here, - only refers to six. He omits the top chakra. Within all his writings (and recorded lectures) all I could find is one sentence in a lecture not even having been translated to English, - (GA 94) where all he is saying is it could not be readily spoken of. - I do not understand why Steiner could not speak of it while others do. - The point may be significant for the issue here because I remember Swami Vishnu Devananda saying in his “Complete Book of Yoga” that one for whom this chakra is active is a enlightened person. - This is from quite a few years ago, - I must have read it in the ’80s. But never the less the fact seems to stand just the same. - So the absence of any mentioning (else than the one mentioned) of the Sahasrara chakra is peculiar too, - but here we do know that he did know of it (how could it be otherwise?) because he mentions it once.
So far. If one is particularly interested one might check the older version of the post too. (A link is at the note at the top)
- 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 Dōgen may be not to use the word, - but I do need to here.
The main reason, - as it seems, - for me rewriting this post here - is for relating to what this “enlightenment” is. The issue of this post is about the absence of apparently any mentioning of it in Anthroposophy. - While at the same time Steiner is using the term (or a sufficiently close one) in his book “Wie Erlangt Man Erkenntnisse der Hoeheren Welten?” - which is no doubt one of his most central and important ones, - for an altogether different thing. - It is best, to say the least, - that the concept will be related to by one who directly knows it of one’s own experience as an enlightened one, - but as we do not have one here at hand I will relate as follows: - There is one reality apart from which nothing exists. - Neither this world nor any other (“higher”) world exists. - Neither myself as the person writing this, - nor any of the readers in the same way, - nor Jesus Christ, nor the historical Buddha, - nor the sky above you, nor the Earth below. All is said to be delusion. - This reality can not be known through any senses, - neither physical ones as we commonly know in our every-day lives, - nor higher or more refined ones as utilized in other worlds by whichever beings residing there. - It can only be “known” directly, - by yourself without any means. - No tools will do. - One who has made it to this attainment of direct knowledge is the enlightened. It can never be reversed and it can never be repeated. - One who is there knows all else to delusion. - Since we have never been anything other than this reality it is also self knowledge. - All else is - as far as I understand - a dream of the reality, - imagination. - The reality, - as us, - is dreaming (or something of the sort) of all worlds, including this one, - and all that occurs within them. - It is said to be a perfect attainment. - There is nothing beyond it. - And one who has come to this direct incomparable state is no longer different or separate from the reality, - individual existence has died, - subsequently there is no “I” too.
I see a point in mentioning also that it is not a matter of East and West, though in Eastern paths there seem to be far more explicit and clear references to it. (I am saying this because Anthroposophists seem to be prone to refer in reply to this matter about which it is not)
The last two paragraphs here are the main reason why I am modifying this post. - It seems misunderstandings relating to the heart of the matter are not rare, - perhaps as an understatement, - while particularly just the point I am asking about causes the situation relating to it. - I have had some correspondence through e-mail following the post as it was, and also here in the comments section, which made me think it was better to rewrite things as to avoid persistent troublesome issues inclined to appear. - Being the central point it is likely that I will relate to it here again still.
- Anthroposophy, as presented - rather, - leads to initiation. There are still some further stages mentioned, as it seems, - but it is still never the less within the sphere - or the spheres - if you like - of phenomena, of delusion - that is; - there is not a reference to what I was relating to earlier. It is of course not the same.
- The point about which this post is is that in all of Rudolf Steiner’s truly quite endless volumes of written books and recorded given lectures - that which is quite clearly the most significant and important phenomenon (- if it can be so called; - but - anyway, - a stage of development) having ever existed in the universe, - namely - our aforementioned “enlightenment”, - as it is most commonly referred to, - seems to be altogether and completely absent. - It is as if he just has never heard of it. - It is practically incomprehensible. - How could it be? - Rudolf Steiner seems to be of such a great and inconceivable amount of knowledge, - to the extent this phenomenon as well of him being as knowledgeable as he is would naturally occur to a person as an unusual phenomenon in itself, - of an enormous variety of phenomena existing both in this physical world and most extensively elsewhere in other spheres too, - while I might suppose spiritual development would be significantly ever standing at the centre of this. - But within all of these so extensive references to perhaps about anything you might think of, (- and certainly not little of what you would not necessarily think of, - as a practical fact) just what is the main point, - as it seems, - is never there. It seems in Anthroposophy there is about everything, - omitting still the most important point. - Anthroposophists, - I get the impression, - are not at all aware in general of its existence. (Perhaps particularly amongst other things because of Rudolf Steiner referring to what he does as “enlightenment” or “illumination” in his book I mentioned above) - That is while in other paths, - such as Yoga or “Zen” or DAT, - you might say it would naturally be just the number one point, - though of course those who are so fortunate as to arrive at it are very few.
- While one is not aware of the very existence of this incomparable peak of spiritual development, - this would mean too, no doubt, - one would not be aware of its absence within Rudolf Steiner’s writings and spoken words - as I referred to here in this post.
I here deleted a long remark appearing in the post as it was. - It was about Steiner’s reference to something he called (in German) “enlightenment” or “illumination” in his book mentioned above. (Translated to English as “Knowledge of the higher worlds and its attainment”, or other similar names) It seems initially practically Anthroposophists might at times - not being familiar with other paths else than from within Anthroposophy, - think - when they hear of “enlightenment” referred to elsewhere, - that it is the same thing as mentioned and referred to in this book.
However, - the mistake is so evident, - and the difference is so obvious, - that there ought to be no room for concern. - In spite of the fact that it is odd that Steiner makes no comment as to clarify and avoid a possible mistake, - the two are not even similar. - There is no room for the slightest doubt that that which Steiner is calling as he does in the aforementioned book, - in part II there - “the stages of initiation” - is not that which is called “enlightenment” in other paths, where it is depicted as the peak of possible achievements in spiritual practice, or on the path in itself.
- So I think a long reference to the issue just for the purpose of clarifying it is not the same should not be necessary, - even if there may be stubborn few who would still argue. - The achievements are altogether so different, - one is becoming able to project some sort of occult light on objects in order to make them visible to newly developed senses, - while the other is arriving at the ultimate truth. (As referred to above)
However, - the mistake is so evident, - and the difference is so obvious, - that there ought to be no room for concern. - In spite of the fact that it is odd that Steiner makes no comment as to clarify and avoid a possible mistake, - the two are not even similar. - There is no room for the slightest doubt that that which Steiner is calling as he does in the aforementioned book, - in part II there - “the stages of initiation” - is not that which is called “enlightenment” in other paths, where it is depicted as the peak of possible achievements in spiritual practice, or on the path in itself.
- So I think a long reference to the issue just for the purpose of clarifying it is not the same should not be necessary, - even if there may be stubborn few who would still argue. - The achievements are altogether so different, - one is becoming able to project some sort of occult light on objects in order to make them visible to newly developed senses, - while the other is arriving at the ultimate truth. (As referred to above)
- So - as I said prior to these three paragraphs above, - the question here is - how could it be? - It is, apparently, - worthy of repeating. - How could it be that in all of Steiner’s so extensive references to spiritual development and fundamentally all that might surround it, - and as well to an inexhaustible variety of phenomena within different spheres, - going into details probably further than any other teacher you might think of, - still there is no mentioning to be found of what would clearly and inevitably be considered the of the most substantial core (to say the least, that is) of the path - or even of existence in itself - elsewhere? - I mean in the teachings and frameworks of other known existing paths?
He does speak of Yoga. He does speak of Buddhism. - These subjects are never in any way foreign to him. - While at the same time we are relating here to a thing (- I don’t know if it could or should be called a phenomenon, - since the reality itself is imperceptible to senses, and this is about its direct realization) which is to be categorized as one of the utmost importance. - He might deny any views he finds incorrect or misleading, - but totally ignoring the whole matter is incomprehensible. - Unless you might assume he simply does not know of it - which of course Anthroposophists will find a most unreasonable idea, - but even if he has no direct knowledge of it off personal experience - how could it be that he has not heard (or read) of it either? - It is really as strange as can be. - Again, - we are talking here about what nothing can come near, - going beyond (or practically underneath) all phenomena and eternally becoming free of the illusion of their actual existence, - the knowledge nothing can compare with and disclosure of the one secret no other can be in any way like.
- I don’t think I ever came across anything similar to an explanation. I don’t really think I will get one here. - People tend to adhere to their lines of accepted ideas and behaviour and sometime view such queries as here as an attack. - The post here has been on for over five years. - I don’t think I could very realistically hope for a worthwhile answer which will actually supply a rather full clarification for the unclear matter I raised. - But particularly since the question itself has not seemed to be noticed at all elsewhere - either within or outside of Anthroposophy, - I might guess its very mentioning is not without value.
I am getting the impression that Anthroposophists only seem to feed from within Anthroposophy, - which is perhaps natural, - but in such a situation - obviously - things as referred to here are not to be expected to be noticed.
- This may be the place to mention Shlomo Kalo says Steiner is wrong. Kalo is an Israeli teacher mentioned sometimes here on the blog. See the link to DAT publications on the right. - I will not relate to this at length since generally speaking I don’t know of an exact reference off him telling what exactly is the wrongness he is referring to. - I understand from a commentator on the blog that there are [explicit] references to Steiner or to Anthroposophy in some of Kalo’s books, but I don’t know these myself - not being familiar with most of his more recent books. (- Since about year 2,000 I guess)
- Still, - I made some comment of the matter here. (Hebrew only)
- Since, as I already somewhat mentioned, one may be likely to receive in reply references to differences between Christianity and Buddhism, or generally perhaps Western and Eastern paths or attitudes, - I find it necessary to state as explicitly as possible: - The issue is not of that. - Enlightenment is prior to all these. - According to Kalo - in case I do not somehow misinterpret - it is not only what the human being exists for the purpose of – (though I would add - if any) but that all worlds (which so ever) never came to be for any other reason. - However, - even without this last assertion perhaps, - in spite of the fact it is true that it is clearer related to in Eastern paths and that also it is more centrally spoken of there, - being what it is it is still at the root of Christianity too. Both Job and Abraham were enlightened according to Kalo, while the binding of Isaac took place for this purpose too.
I recently had a post on relating to just this, - https://thisuniverseouthere.blogspot.com/2025/07/enlightenment-in-new-testament.html, - I there related to the matter. - In the Lord’s Prayer the Kingdom mentioned is no other than this. - This is one point where it is particularly clear. Steiner says something else, - I know.
- When Jesus speaks of knowing the Father this is another way (quite natural for him and for his line of speech as we know it) of relating to the same thing again. - “The Father” is what Jesus called the reality I was speaking about. - In accordance with the existing mentality of the audience at the time and at the place, - quite clearly. - In Hindu it is known as “Brahman”. (Or “Ishvara” as well)
Being the most fundamental thing nothing can compete with, - it would be ever mentioned by different individuals who have come to realize it.
Lao Tse called it Tao. Since it is what all forms rely on it might be presented is very different ways - even as to make different references not even be similar. - The post is long, - you can check it where it is. I see no point in going into all that is there here too, - but the point is unquestionable and positive, - enlightenment - though not called by this name, - is not absent in Christianity. It is quite obviously true that Jesus dis not mean to be as clear about the matter as explicit frequent expressions in Yoga or Buddhism, - and even today in the Christian churches knowledge of the matter has not emerged, - but just the same the Kingdom of God is there, - even if unrevealed as it is.
- Kalo asserts that Jesus was enlightened from birth, - he sees great meaning and significance in this, - though I don’t know why.
- It also seems to be true that the number of those arriving at the achievement within their lifetime, - within Christianity, - would be much smaller than in Eastern paths. - Unlike those getting there on their depart from the physical plain, - I mean, - but I can not say this for sure.
- As I somewhat related to perhaps, - an initiate is not necessarily enlightened. I recall Kalo relating to one example, - of whom he is saying is one of the significant or outstanding initiates of the Christian church, - I think he is referring to Pope Callixtus I. - Initiation is still within the sphere of delusion, of form, - of creation if you like. - More refined, more subtle, - however great still, - but never the less not altogether knowing what it is that lies prior to any such thing, to any phenomenon.- Enlightenment is about arriving at what is not within any spheres of any worlds, - however high I mean. Any other thing would not be like this, - there is only one enlightenment.
- I would add here another reference to a thing likely to arise in response to things here: - Steiner speaks of things which could only be understood by one whose thinking is no longer dependant on the brain. At the same time I recall Steiner’s idea or attitude according to which nothing could exceed the boundaries of thought. - The first point here might be raised by Anthroposophists as to excuse the total absence of any reference to enlightenment as I am writing about here. - So it may be necessary to point that it is not that it is mentioned but not further referred to or clarified, - but rather as if it never existed. - It is a significantly different thing, - no doubt I believe.
- As for the other point, - judging by what those who have actually arrived at the state are saying we might say that neither enlightenment nor the reality could be known by the thinking. - It will not do. - The issue is not said to be a matter of being free of a dependence on the brain. No matter high a clairvoyant may be, - if he (or she) is not enlightened the reality will not be known. - I have mentioned before an initiate Kalo is clarifying with regard to that he was not enlightened, - further he seems to practically actually make clear that the person referred to was not at all aware of the existence of enlightenment in itself. - How could this be? - I am not among the inhabitants of Heaven. - Should I attempt to try and say something here I might say that for thought to try and fathom what the reality is, - while we know that one who has crossed this barrier in the enlightened - is like - were we to liken thought to a tube one is looking through, - for this tube to bend and look at its own origin. - I would say it is not possible for thought to clarify and understand its own origin. I said the reality could only be known directly. For this purpose it would be necessary for thought to fade, to dissolve, - so that the reality which just yourself is could be simply seen. - It is not possible to conclude of what-it-is through step by step thinking processes relying on mental pictures acquired in any world. - There is no such thing as a mental picture of the reality. It cannot be accommodated in a self conscious mind. - I would say that for the reality itself there are no thinking processes. It knows itself and there is no other thing to be known. So no need for thought exists. - The principle of thinking is of finding out of what you don’t know off what you do. If nothing is hidden there is no place for it.
- For thinking to be able to tell what the reality is is like for a building to be able to support its own foundations. - Figuring out what it is off any knowledge of any phenomenon in any world seems to be like knowing the clear blue sky off picture of clouds only. - It is what dreams of all we know - as far as I understand - as long as not enlightened we know nothing but this dream, - we cannot tell of the dreamer until we wake up. Higher worlds are still within this dream. Within this bubble. - It is not reality.
- Perhaps I should make one reluctance: - The working on “Zen” koans, as practiced in the Rinzai branch, does seem to be indeed some sort of a thinking process. - Does this contradict the above? - I would say that it is not that you learn of what the reality is within this work, - but rather that it brings you so close to it that in a flash in the right moment you will see it. Even if we can’t learn of the essential substance of the true reality by thinking - relying on what we acquire within the dream we live in, - we can still learn of our ignorance, - while when this comes so close to be completed the truth may be revealed.
Anyway, - the point in the last three paragraphs is about thinking altogether being unable to lead us to a real (not intellectual or conceptual) knowledge of what the original reality is, - which would actually be the same as understanding enlightenment. - I do not find it so possible to tell exactly why no acquaintance with any phenomena [- however “high” or however refined] dwelling within the spheres all arising from the reality referred to, - could lead us, through any conclusion within our abilities, to understand and know what lies below - what it is off which it all [as if] came to be. - It is like a table perhaps upon which all is put, - and the objects lying there can not tell us of the table itself. - I believe the first root of delusion is in so called self consciousness, - the doubled mind, - the “second moon” in “Zen”, - then space and whatever may be within it could follow, - but in order to tell why from within the boundary of the view of the self-conscious person one cannot fathom what is prior to it, - the reality before any appearance of self consciousness, - it seems to take one who has already solved the mystery, - and this one as well would probably not be able to express it either.
- Still it could no doubt be said - as already mentioned - that enlightenment is just about unveiling what no mystery can compare with. Waking up is not like understanding things within your dream.
- What has not been said yet? - I have actually written in way I usually wouldn’t because of possibly expected mistakes and misunderstandings. Things are not usually said and repeated as here. - Some things need to be figured out without such expression as here. - But I might have had no choice in this case.
- Still, - as an ending statement I might still mention that the state of the enlightened is as clearly as possible what Yoga is explicitly aimed at. - It is just as well what Buddhism is leading to. - The reality referred to as “Brahman” is just the same which Jesus called the Father. - It is also called the self, - or the absolute or the reality. - For whichever reason Jesus did not choose to clarify himself with regard to his “Kingdom of God” (or “Kingdom of Heaven) as done in the East. - It seems such clarifications would have been quite foreign to Judaism within which he landed at the time. - But particularly while the same aim is that of other teachings too - anyway, - it is what inevitably any path formed by one who has arrived at the ultimate truth would go.
So at the bottom line of this post, - if anyone reading this could actually refer to the question in question, - and let me know or explain why or how is it that Rudolf Steiner seems to never at all mention or relate to what is known as “enlightenment” in Eastern paths, and elsewhere too, - that is in his books and lectures given, - than please let me know.
Please refer at the comments section. Had you not checked you might check the note at the top. - Since comments on posts older than 90 days are not seen unless I approve them, - you could also leave an e-mail address in such a comment and I will delete it if you wish so that your address will not be published. - Do note that I do not very frequently check the blog.
- One last other note, which could stand either way: - Normally seven chakras (or lotus flowers or mind centres) are mentioned. - So in Yoga, in esoteric Buddhism I believe, - in Kalo’s writings, - and even in Theosophy off which Anthroposophy has split. - Steiner, - in his book mentioned here, - only refers to six. He omits the top chakra. Within all his writings (and recorded lectures) all I could find is one sentence in a lecture not even having been translated to English, - (GA 94) where all he is saying is it could not be readily spoken of. - I do not understand why Steiner could not speak of it while others do. - The point may be significant for the issue here because I remember Swami Vishnu Devananda saying in his “Complete Book of Yoga” that one for whom this chakra is active is a enlightened person. - This is from quite a few years ago, - I must have read it in the ’80s. But never the less the fact seems to stand just the same. - So the absence of any mentioning (else than the one mentioned) of the Sahasrara chakra is peculiar too, - but here we do know that he did know of it (how could it be otherwise?) because he mentions it once.
So far. If one is particularly interested one might check the older version of the post too. (A link is at the note at the top)
No comments:
Post a Comment