I think their is confusion over the world-view of monism (the world view Steiner explained) and the world view of the religion of anthroposophy. Anthroposphists have gathered Steiner's lectures and produced a faith-based religion of speculation. The lecture material and the terms are memorized and then repeated in conversations with others who can speak the Steiner language to speculate about fantastic spiritual theory. Quite an intellectual buzz can be achieved. That is why a Buddhist and a Christian would feel uncomfortable. How does this square with monism?

It you begin with a foundation in the Philosophy of Freedom then Steiner's lectures would have an equal status as the Buddhist and Christian philosophy. You could take them or leave them. They would not be the foundation of anthroposophy, they can only be the foundation of a religion or cult. The foundation of anthroposophy is the monistic world-view described in POF which is a freedom philosophy based in the reality of a lawful universe that can be observed and these laws discovered by each of us as part of our daily life. It is not a spiritual theory-based philosophy, not intellectual-based, not lecture based, it is free from fixed conceptual systems and hierarchical authority. It is science-based in each one's individual life of observation and thinking expressed morally in ethical individualism. In this sense the so called anthroposophist is on equal ground with the Buddhist and Christian with the challenge of understanding the others will (laws).

I have had a strong interest in the Anthroposophical Society because I assumed that would be fertile ground for the The Philosophy of Freedom. After a year of investigation I am coming to the conclusion that the anthroposophical movement, at its core, is a religion.

No, anthroposophy is not a religion, nor is it meant to be a substitute for religion. While its insights may support, illuminate or complement religious practice, it provides no belief system. --Jean Yeager, Administrative Director of the Anthroposophical Society in America

Ha ha. Part of the dogma is that Anthroposophy is a system where Steiner set forth that each individual was a validator, and was to verify each and every thing by himself. Of course, as it turned out, most if not all is belief. This is easily confirmed just by listening to a conversation among society anthroposophists. So what? So what if it is a religion. Religion has value. I accept what Steiner says on faith because I trust him. I do work to validate POF but I don't spend time trying to validate the existence of Atlantis.

But I am looking for fertile ground to present POF. You can't build a free community out of a religion. You just end up with the same religion with people of that religion, nobody else would be interested. So I am looking at ways to interest a diverse spectrum of the public who may already have a faith and younger people that are "unchurched". By bringing people together of different dogmas they will challenge each others belief system thus freeing them from it. Starting from scratch by presenting POF to new people who are skeptics will be very difficult and likely impossible for myself because they will be lacking the "faith", but what else is worth doing?

Dear Friends,

I can't  call Anthroposophy a religion, but I do experience many, who would call themselves anthroposophists, to have a belief system.  This system of beliefs includes the idea (not always overtly stated) that we can acquire knowledge of the spiritual through Rudolf Steiner.  

In my book American Anthroposophy, in the essay Anthrosophy and the Russian Soul, I write that introspection allows us to discern in the own soul three basic states in relationship to our collection of concepts: belief, understanding and knowledge.  Most anthroposophists lack this quality of discernment, and therefore cannot distinguish these different inner relational states to their favorite concepts.

The basic question has to do with whether or not we have in our experience both  a percept and a concept, that belong together.  If we have joined together percept (experience) and concept (thought) in the right way, then we have true knowledge.  If all we have, for example, is a Steiner text, and thus the thought that an Archangel such as Michael exists and does certain things, that can't be knowledge because we lack the percept (the supersensible experience).  Such concepts (e.g. Michael etc.) can be real understanding, if we have worked with them consciously during our reading experience.  In fact, in both the introduction to Theosophy and Occult Science, Steiner repeatedly uses the term understanding, but never the term knowledge.

If,  however, the reader of a Steiner text is basically passive during the reading  process, then they will not even acquire real understanding, but only end up with mere belief.  These passive belivers of what Steiner has written then treat that material in a religious-like fashion, which I have concluded produces what has to be called Steinerism.  This is similar in nature to the faith (belief) in science that produces what is there understood as Scientism (see Wikipedia). 

Anthroposophy, itself, properly understood as "a path of cogntion" can't be a religion, althought it is a practice.  Many anthroposophist also confuse the path (Anthroposophy as a practice or a method of cognition), with the content this method produces (the conceptual substance of Spiritual Science).

It is probably useful here to recall the idea Steiner gives us in several places that there is only one concept of a triangle, which can be perceived by all minds.  The whole problem of knowledge, in the sense of naive percept united with concept, is easily experienced in the study of geometry.  We don't even have to deal with a drawing on a page - the naive percept of the triangle and the concept come before the thinking subject already united.  The same cannot be said of the concept of Michael.  A Spiritual Being is far more difficult to approach in ordinary consciousness, with good reason for the Being would overwhelm our ego if we are not prepared.  I use the terms naive percept in order to recognize that concepts (properly understood) are always the Garment of Spiritual Beings (their ethereal clothing as it were), and that profoundly fundamental and powerful Spiritual Beings lie behind all geometrical truths.

We always, in reading a Seiner text on Spiritual Realities, have to remind ourselves that he has reduced to concepts something which to his personal  experience was dynamic and sublime.  We never read what he experienced, but really only what he was able to render into language, which for English speakers is even more removed from Steiner's experience, by the translation process itself.  When we, with our weak and untrained picture thinking, try  to re-imagine (build images) out of what he has written (or spoken in most cases), our own ego is creating a kind of weak tea understanding of matters far more complicated.

Further, when we discuss, again using language, this material here or in study groups, we have become so  far removed from the true percept, that it is only a vanity to assume we now know something.  Steiner often remarked that  what he did was like what a natural scientist did when they reported the results of their research.  They help us understand the world, and this is what Steiner has done: helped us understand the spiritual realities behind our experience.

This understanding is a great gift to us, and will also be a great aid as we approach our own spiritual experiences.  An even great gift lies in the study of PoF, for it is the training for the new cognition, so very necessary  for our own dynamic and sublime spiritual experiences to become conceptually rendered into  language we can share.

joel