Bryn recently posted a comment that has started me thinking about the Philosophy of Freedom, freedom, spirituality and the Christian path:
I often wondered how Steiner made his leap from philosopher/clairvoyant/Nietschzean to full-on Christian, using only willed thinking as main instrument (ie no conversion experience) . Now I see that this, philosophical "knowledge over ego" insight as clarifying. I recall RS mentioning a "festival of Knowledge" (correct me if I'm mistaken in my memory) around this issue in his autobiography. I can see that If one were to be gifted with a very personified experience of the concept of knowledge it becomes highly plausable to shift philosophical thinking (willed) toward matters "Christ-ish".
I found the following line in an online translation of Chapter 26 of Steiner's autobiography "The Story of My Life" at http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA028/TSoML/GA028_c26.html
The evolution of my soul rested upon the fact that I stood before the mystery of Golgotha in most inward, earnest joy of knowledge.
I have another translation of Steiner's biography by Rita Stebbing (Rudolf Steiner - An Autobiography) which translates this sentence as follows:
This experience culminated in my standing in the spiritual presence of the Mystery of Golgotha in a most profound and solemn festival of knowledge.
The whole of Chapter 26 is worth reading in this context I think:
INDIVIDUAL assertions regarding Christianity which I wrote or uttered in lectures at this time appear to be contrary to the expositions I gave later. In this connection the following must be noted. At that time, when I used the word “Christianity,” I had in mind the “beyond” teaching which is operative in the Christian creeds. The whole content of religious experience refers to a world of spirit which is not attainable by man in the unfolding of his spiritual powers. What religion has to say, what it has to give as moral precepts, is derived from revelations that come to man from without. Against this my view of spirit opposed itself, desiring to experience the world of spirit just as much as the sense-world in what is perceptible in man and in nature. Against this likewise was my ethical individualism opposed, desiring to have the moral life proceed, not from without by way of precepts obeyed, but out of the unfolding of the human soul and spirit, wherein lives the divine.
What then occurred in my soul in viewing Christianity was a severe test for me. The time between my departure from the Weimar task and the production of my book Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache(1) is occupied by this test. Such tests are the opposition provided by destiny (Karma) which one's spiritual evolution has to overcome.
In my thoughts I perceived that there could result from the knowledge of nature – though this did not result at that time – the basis upon which man might attain to insight in the world of spirit. I therefore laid much stress upon the knowledge of the foundation of nature which must lead to the knowledge of spirit. For one who did not stand in living reality within the world of spirit, such a sinking of himself into a certain course of thought signified a mere activity of thought. For one who experiences the world of spirit, it signifies something quite different. He is brought into contact with Beings in the world of spirit who desire to make such tendencies of thought the sole predominant ones. Their one-sidedness in thinking does not merely lead to abstract error; there is a spiritual and living intercourse with a being which in the human world is error. Later I spoke of Ahrimanic beings when I wished to make reference to this. For these it is an absolute truth that the world must be a machine. They live in a world which touches directly upon the sense-world.
In my own ideas I never for one moment fell into this world, not even in the unconscious. For I took pains that all my knowledge should be reached in a state of discriminating consciousness. So much the more conscious was my inner struggle against the demonic Powers who would cause to come about from the knowledge of nature, not perception of spirit, but a mechanistic-materialistic form of thinking. He who seeks for knowledge of spirit must experience these worlds: for him a mere theoretical thinking about them does not suffice. At that time I had to save my spiritual perception by inner battles. These battles stood behind my outer experience.
In this time of testing I succeeded in advancing farther only when in spiritual perception I brought before my soul the evolution of Christianity. This led to the knowledge which was expressed in the book Christianity as Mystical Fact. Before this the Christian content to which I had referred had always been that found in existent creeds. This was true of Nietzsche also.
In an earlier passage in this biography I have narrated a conversation concerning Christ that I had with the learned Cistercian who was a professor in the faculty of Catholic theology of the University of Vienna. I was in the presence of a sceptical mood. The Christianity which I had to seek I did not find at all in the creeds. After the time of testing had set before me stern battles of the soul, I had to submerge myself in Christianity and in the world in which the spiritual speaks thereof.
In my attitude toward Christianity it can clearly be seen that I have by no means sought and found in spiritual science by the path which many persons have ascribed to me. These state the matter as if I had collected together the knowledge of spirit left in ancient traditions. I am supposed to have elaborated Gnostic and other teachings. What is achieved of the knowledge of spirit in Christianity as Mystical Fact is brought directly out of the spiritual world. Only when I wished to show to those who heard my lectures and to the readers of the books the harmony between the spiritual perception and the historic traditions did I first take these traditions and blend them in the content. But nothing existing in these documents have I blended in the content unless I had first had this before me in the spirit.
At the time when I made the statements concerning Christianity so opposed in literal content to later utterances, it was also true that the real content of Christianity was beginning germinally to unfold within me as an inner phenomenon. About the turn of the century the germ unfolded more and more. Before this turn of the century came this testing of the soul here described. The evolution of my soul rested upon the fact that I stood before the mystery of Golgotha in most inward, earnest joy of knowledge.
Comments welcome, otherwise you will have to listen to me rabbit on some more soon... ;-)
Tim
Rabbit, rabbit!
Thank you for digging this out Tim. Most kind of you and interesting stuff. I think its RS's "the harmony of the spiritual perception and the historical traditions" bit that is telling to me.
Also his stuff about "Beings" which is everywhere in his writings.
Starting with the "beings" thing which I think is so important. Its the crossing point from the glamour of publicly manipulating nice anodyne philosophical concepts to mumbling occult formulations that could potentially lose you your friends! I mean "Beings"?! "Whats that all about then?"(as they say these days)
Its a very hard word to bring into debate without a charitable audience and ten minutes preamble to prepare the ground and sanitize the idea. Steiner just simply mentions Beings and thats that. That's not a luxury I have.
Its a crucial transition though in my private experience of knowledge. In Theosophy for example,, I recall, RS is very delicate in his technique of putting the then defunct ispiritual dea of Karma before a squeemish public.. He constructs a conceptual thought form for it and then goes on to ask his reader to consider if there is anything in real life to match his nice clean conceptual structure. Of course, the reader is on his own thereafter. Its all very polite. I think the Beings word is in danger of going the way for example of the word "gay".
As for "Historical realities" of christianity, I personally have never been attracted to the iconography or formulations of that religion. So I was always slightly startled (disgusted?) by enthusiasm of otherwise rational anthropops to suddenly clothe their experiences in"Jesus Language". I've since learned forbearance in this. Its karma, mine and theirs! Steiner claims he only mentions the religion to help the faithful see the truth/concordance of his own esoteric insight on the matter. What can I say? I believe him.
It seems Rudi's "conversion" was private, subtle, and based on hard work. Sounds familiar.
Love
Bryn
Beings
One thing that makes sense to me is Steiner's differentiation between levels of spiritual perception - imagination, inspiration and intuition. I think we always experience these different levels inwardly in our everyday life, it's just we're not always aware of it.
Intuition is the highest level and involves, from my experience, knowledge of Being beyond any doubt. In Philosophy of Freedom I am led to know the Being of Thinking.
From there I can at least understand what perceiving a Being might involve, even if they are not physically perceptible.
It is the beginning of Spring here, and at this time from my experience it is very possible to experience Beings working in the external world, Beings which are not directly perceptible to the senses.
With regard to Steiner's experience of demonic powers I always think of C. S. Lewis' book "The Screwtape Letters" which I read when I was a thorough-going materialist. I laughed at the idea underlying that book that there could be Beings interested in influencing my thoughts and actions in a certain direction. Nowadays I think there could be some truth in the idea... :-)
The Being of Thinking
Yes the Being of Thinking. This must be a very significant being indeed considering everything that RS says hangs on thinking! Personally I can't bring myself to speculate from my own experience on the mightyness of what I am encountering there. I just keep my head down and keep working.
I can use the personal pronoun I with reference to the being I know best, (me!) and I think that is the prime intuition.But when it comes to other possible beings I tend to shy away from personal pronouns. I use myself as the benchmark for any phenomenon that might be about to develop into a being. The potential for sentimentality, anthropomorphising, and self delusion is so strong in all this it is almost too much to write about...but whatever. I get embarrased when people talk about "their angels"! I think Disney and all the iconography of spirituality are against beings. I think RS's methodology is the most competent at evoking them: offer a thought structure that shines and wait. that seems to be his technique in a nutshell.
Love
Bryn
Steiner and BEING
When working with Steiner texts, particularly the mantric verses, it can sometimes be illuminating to consider the word presence when the translator uses the word being. The inner sensing of spirit being becomes more immediate in the encounter of spirit presence.
It can be a liberating exercise to consider word choices that Rudolf Steiner’s translators have not selected. Testing our personal readings and ways of expressing Steiner’s ideas against the printed formulation helps us to notice whether we are trampling the text with our own ideas, or tracking the footsteps of the author’s journey.
The craft of expressing spiritual ideas in comprehensible language develops through individuals and generations. Consider the colouring of A Philosophy of Spiritual Emancipation, for example.
Helpful John.
Yes -presence.It helps.The word has got a hint of the seance room about it though,so maybe not for unconsidered public offering?. We are definitely objects of linguistic attack these days. I like your "Tracking the footsteps of the authors journey". Sound phrase.
I also like Heidegger's spectacular struggle with the german language around his central notion of Being (dasein), but of course he is determined to nail being without getting into Beings. I admire him though. The struggle to be ,as he would say, "authentic" in respect of being, is inspiring.
I remember in RS's "The Inner realities of Evolution" he advises readers to imagine the Thrones sacrificing to the Cherubim, using any hack, formulaic picture they care to choose. I took his advice. I'm not sure it was a good thing to do, but I await on that.
Love
Bryn