The Anthroposophic Movement

Baron Arild Rosenkrantz

Greetings friends – I shared in the last post how Sergei O Prokofieff affirmed my connection  to the Being of Anthroposophia, & a long time participant of ReverseRitual Steve Hale recalled a lecture by Steiner, which I quote in part below. In re-reading this, other important aspects caught my attention; specifically in regard to the difference between modern science & Spiritual Science.

“As long as so much of the present scientific mode of thinking is carried unconsciously into the anthroposophical movement it will not be able to make progress productively.

In particular, there will be a lack of progress as long as people believe that the current scientific establishment can be persuaded about anything without their first adopting a more positive attitude towards anthroposophy. Once they have done that, a dialogue can begin. Our task with regard to those who are fighting against anthroposophy today can only be to demonstrate clearly where they are not telling the truth. That is something which can be discussed. But of course there can be no dialogue about matters of substance, matters of content, with people who not only do not want to be convinced, but who cannot be convinced because they lack the necessary basic knowledge.

That, above all, is where the work needs to be done: to undertake basic research for ourselves in the various fields, but to do that from the core of anthroposophy…

The only proper course we can pursue is to tell the world what we have found through anthroposophy itself, and then wait and see how many people are able to understand it. We certainly cannot approach the world with the core material of anthroposophy in the hope that there might be a party or a person who can be won over.”

Baron Arild Rosenkrantz

Also what struck me was the idea that we must each come to our own understanding of Anthroposophy by consulting as free individuals with the Being of Anthroposophia as Steiner says.

Below are some other interesting quotes & also the link to the entire lecture which is worth studying.

David Newbatt

The Anthroposophic Movement, Lecture 7, The Consolidation of the Anthroposophic Movement, Dornach, 16 June 1923 https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA258/English/RSP1993/19230616p01.html

Anthroposophists today must not think that they have only the same commitments which future anthroposophists will have when they exist by the million rather than the thousand. When limited numbers are active in the vanguard of a movement they have to show commitment of a much higher order. It means that they are obliged to show greater courage, greater energy, greater patience, greater tolerance and, above all, greater truthfulness in every respect. And in our present third stage a situation arose which specifically tested our truthfulness and seriousness. It related in a certain sense to the subject matter discussed at one point in the lectures to theologians. [ Note 5 ] Irrespective of the fact that individual anthroposophists exist, a feeling should have developed, and must develop, among them that Anthroposophia exists as a separate being, who moves about among us, as it were, towards whom we carry a responsibility in every moment of our lives. Anthroposophia is actually an invisible person who walks among visible people and towards whom we must show the greatest responsibility for as long as we are a small group. Anthroposophia is someone who must be understood as an invisible person, as someone with a real existence, who should be consulted in the individual actions of our lives.

Thus, if connections form between people — friendships, cliques and so on — at a time when the group of anthroposophists is still small, it is all the more necessary to consult and to be able to justify all one’s actions before this invisible person.

This will, of course, apply less and less as anthroposophy spreads. But as long as it remains the property of a small group of people, it is necessary for every action to follow from consultation with the person Anthroposophia. That Anthroposophia should be seen as a living being is an essential condition of its existence. It will only be allowed to die when its group of supporters has expanded immeasurably. What we require, then, is a deeply serious commitment to the invisible person I have just spoken about. That commitment has to grow with every passing day. If it does so, there can be no doubt that everything we do will begin and proceed in the right way…

As long as so much of the present scientific mode of thinking is carried unconsciously into the anthroposophical movement it will not be able to make progress productively.

In particular, there will be a lack of progress as long as people believe that the current scientific establishment can be persuaded about anything without their first adopting a more positive attitude towards anthroposophy. Once they have done that, a dialogue can begin. Our task with regard to those who are fighting against anthroposophy today can only be to demonstrate clearly where they are not telling the truth. That is something which can be discussed. But of course there can be no dialogue about matters of substance, matters of content, with people who not only do not want to be convinced, but who cannot be convinced because they lack the necessary basic knowledge.

That, above all, is where the work needs to be done: to undertake basic research for ourselves in the various fields, but to do that from the core of anthroposophy.

When an attempt was made after the war to tackle practical issues in people’s lives and the problems facing the world, that again had to be done on the basis of anthroposophy, and with the recognition that with these practical tasks in particular it was hardly possible to count on any sort of understanding. The only proper course we can pursue is to tell the world what we have found through anthroposophy itself, and then wait and see how many people are able to understand it. We certainly cannot approach the world with the core material of anthroposophy in the hope that there might be a party or a person who can be won over. That is impossible. That is contrary to the fundamental circumstances governing the existence of the anthroposophical movement. Take a women’s movement or a social movement, for instance, where it is possible to take the view that we should join and compromise our position because its members’ views may incline towards anthroposophy in one way or another; that is absolutely impossible. What matters is to have enough inner security regarding anthroposophy to be able to advocate it under any circumstances…

A society cannot be sectarian. That is why, if the Anthroposophical Society were standing on its proper ground, the we should never play a role. One repeatedly hears anthroposophists saying we, the Society, have this or that view in relation to the outside world: Something or other is happening to us. We want one thing or another. In ancient times it was possible for societies to face the world with such conformity. Now it is no longer possible. In our time each person who is a member of a society like this one has to be a really free human being. Views, thoughts, opinions are held only by individuals. The Society does not have an opinion. And that should be expressed in the way that individuals speak about the Society. The we should actually disappear…

There is something else connected with this. If this we disappears, people in the Society will not feel as if they are in a pool which supports them and which they can call on for support when it matters. But if a person has expressed his own views in the Society and has to represent himself, he will also feel fully responsible for what he says as an individual.

This feeling of responsibility is something which has to grow as long as the Society remains a small group of people. The way in which that has been put into practice so far has not succeeded in making the world at large understand the Anthroposophical Society as an eminently modern society, because this practice has repeatedly led to a situation in which the image which has been set before the public is we believe, we are of the opinion, it is our conception of the world. So today the world outside holds the view that the Society is a compacted mass which holds certain collective opinions to which one has to subscribe as a member. Of course this will deter any independently minded person…

But people will only be able to think in this direction if they radically discard the petty aspects of their character and truly begin to be understand the need to recognize Anthroposophia as an independent, invisible being…”

RUDOLF STEINER’S CALENDAR OF THE SOUL
translated (with added titles) by Roy Sadler
LAMMASTIDE II

Can I Imagine Spiritual Need?
v18
Can I make wide my soul
that she unite with seed
of Cosmic Word conceived?
I feel my foresight asking me
to find the strangth my soul will need
to form her spirit garment worthily.

v18 and its mirror, v35, are the only question verses.

ADVENT II
Can I Be Present?

v35
Can I absorb true being
that it may find itself anew
within my soul’s creative urge?
I feel a power trusting me
to make myself with modesty
a member of the Cosmic Self.

20 thoughts on “The Anthroposophic Movement

  1. Thank you for further elaboration on Anthroposophia, Hazel. What came to mind in your last comment was that of ‘genius’. I believe I heard this from Elizabeth Gilbert, who did a lecture on this word. According to her, the word originally described something ‘outside’ the individual, like a muse. Later, we ascribe ‘genius’ to the individual, but we leave out the initial stepping stone. I can certainly attest to this, musically speaking, for many times ideas seem to just be floating in air. This can go for any kind of art. But it makes sense that philosophy itself is something outside of us. We do have to bring it ‘in’ and then pour it ‘out’. That seems to perfectly encapsulate the Sophia (philosophy), as a living being outside of us which then flows through us Anthro (human), to come out as a combination of Anthroposophia. We are, in a way, emissaries of such wisdom if we choose to be receptive to it. [I hope I’m not misunderstanding what you had explained in wonderful detail, Hazel].

    Who is listening? That seems to be the essential question here. Most people are worried, or thinking, about their next step. Ever go on a walk with someone and they have no situational awareness? Or they can’t stop talking and just be fine with silence and listening to the forest? You can see it, that many people are like this, especially in the cities. It is rather normal behaviour.

    I can understand why Steiner was so big on Peasant Wisdom. A seemingly ‘unintelligent’ farmer spends hours at a time just watching and observing. They might not know, intellectually speaking, the idea of Anthroposophia, but I feel they may understand Her. I do remember coming across a villager (in Thailand), who knew about some plant properties for a tea, and the only way he found out about it was explained through ‘intuition’. No books, but ‘something’ told him about this plant (and others).

    The same thing is said about Ayahuasca. Western botanists cannot figure out how the Amazonians knew about the particular combination of two plants, and the proper way to prepare the ‘tea’. Their answer, the plants told them. They also say the plants sing different songs. Not very ‘scientific’, but they were able to find these plants among 80,000 + different species anyway!

    With the plants, it’s easy to see it as ‘objective’. For example – a poisonous mushroom is a poisonous mushroom, regardless what anyone thinks about it. With philosophy, it may be a bit harder, but still, this seems to be what is required of us, is that safe to say? Some ‘ideas’ are illusory, regardless of one’s feelings about it… like a poisonous mushroom, so for sure there must be an objective truth in all of it!

    1. Hi Kyle – I hope you are still in the glow of your natal return!
      I love how you describe the muse-ical process, I can relate, as I live for this experience.
      The image of bringing in what the spiritual world is always providing as the ‘Great Song’
      & then being able to pour it out thru our honed human capacities – a perfect rendering of the process of true intitation & of the image & opportunity of engaging with Anthroposophia.
      Thank you

    2. Thanks Kyle for your thoughtful reply to Hazel. You gave so much to ponder on. My sense is that you’re the type who enjoys wandering in the field of ideas that are floating around out there, such as when you’re walking through those trees. Had to chuckle about your mention of city folk – you’re correct, they’re addicted to the noise of their lives, at least most of them, not all Hazel. They miss so much by not hearing what DeBussy called “the silence between the notes”. These folk, and there are many of them, have so suppressed the psychic forces behind all material things that they’re what I’d call unconscious.

      But back to what you called the world of ideas floating around. We humans were made to be the perfect emissaries (your word)for those ideas. We are each like a garden unto ourselves – in fact, The Song of Solomon uses the analogy of a garden to describe how the Beloved sees the woman that he is captivated by. In this age of the consciousness soul, we each now have our own vineyard to tend. Who do we tend it for? For our Maker, our Beloved.

      In the Song of Songs, the woman recognizes that she’s been so busy tending to her brother’s vineyards that she hasn’t properly tended to her own vineyard (1:6). In the rest of the Song, she returns to her first love so to speak – she returns to tending her own vineyard, and her Beloved sees that, and delights in the fruit of her efforts. I’m so glad you mentioned this world of ideas Kyle, because it reminded me of how we have the privilege, and responsibility, to tend our own vineyard. I read a verse from Micah 4:4 this morning, how, in the future “mountain of the Lord”, everyone shall “sit under his vine, and under his fig tree”, and you know what the fig tree symbolizes in regards to initiation into the Mysteries.

      By the end of the Song of Songs, the woman has tended to her own vineyard (8:12), and she has plenty of fruit for her Beloved, and enough to share with those who tended to its fruit. We too, if we return to tending our garden, our vineyard, can be abundantly fruitful. This is our wonderful privilege to enjoy in this age of the consciousness soul.

      1. This is great, Maverick. I love the image of the vineyard and the garden. This truly is a symbol to keep in heart. A ‘privilege and responsibility’ to tend to [it]; I will have to remember this! Thank you for sharing. I’m glad you had a chuckle about the city folk. I, myself, am actually a city folk for the most part but also spent quite some time living in the countryside. I hope I didn’t come off too judgmental, but it certainly is a contrast to behold.

        Thank you again, Hazel. It’s truly been an interesting natal return, that’s for sure. I really like how you put it, ‘honed human capacities’. An aspiring state to achieve and continually work on.

          1. Something that has helped me immensely in my meditations is Steiner’s revelation that we are Archai food (from Lecture 13, Cologne, The Fifth Gospel). Of course, my hope is that, as the Archai eat from my garden and drink of my vineyard, that they will impart some heavenly thoughts and ideas that will strengthen the Christ seed in me.

            Reading words, then, from the Song of Songs, takes on new meaning with the above in mind, such as these: “Eat, O friends! Drink, yes, drink deeply, O beloved ones!” (S.of S. 5:1). The Song of Solomon has occupied a strange place in Holy Writ, with many questioning why it’s included – so hard to know what to make of it. But with Steiner’s input, it all begins to make sense.

    3. Hi Kyle,

      You indicate an important question, “who is listening”? Well, this is important to ask. Who is really listening. The genesis of the Being Anthroposophia is a kind of miraculous occurrence. Yet, do we want to accept and absorb these miraculous occurrences? With regard to the genesis of the Being Anthroposophia, Rudolf Steiner did invoke Dante Aligheri in the lecture from February 3, 1913. He says a great deal to his Berlin audience that day, and it was for the purpose of formally telling them that the German Section of the Theosophical Society had been expelled by the order of Annie Besant. Then, the next day, he goes into more detail. Yet, what he reveals this next day has a precursor, which goes back to August 26, 1912. This is where he first reveals how Dante’s incarnation in the 19th century meant something important to him:

      “In the successive epochs of human evolution we find one remarkable phenomenon. I could give examples of what I have just told you of the confusing way in which initiates on reincarnating sometimes appear to have come down from their heights. You would probably be much surprised if I told you, for instance, in what way Dante was reincarnated in the nineteenth century. But it is not my task here to discuss further this result of my own investigation and what was established for me. Rather have I to bring forward with strong proof the things known to everyone conversant with occultism, letting everything else recede into the background and stating nothing that is not generally recognised where bona fide occultism is upheld.”

      https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA138/English/AP1980/19120826p01.html

      He was obviously setting the stage for what he would, of necessity, have to explain with the lectures from the next year. Yet, he did not know that he would be expelled from the theosophical movement. It is was a shock; very much a shock. He had to immediately explain more, with the Dante introduction, and so it all goes back to when he was a seven year old boy sitting in the Pottshach railway station. Dante reincarnated in order to wake the little boy up with encouraging words to “help me now and later”. The later was Steiner’s own perceptions given with GA 258. She was still involved.

      Regards,

      Steve

      1. Hi Steve. I’m finding myself with more questions, here. How do you mean, “do we want to accept and absorb these miraculous occurrences?” I’m assuming this can be taken generally speaking, but just curious on your take.

        I’m also interested in this connection with Dante, the expelling of the German Section from the Theosophical Society, and who the Reincarnation of Dante was. If this ‘shock’ that Steiner felt where his world changed was similar to Brunetto Latini’s (said with an Italian accent) experience going back to Florence… well, that is interesting, indeed! I also didn’t know that they [Steiner and the rest] were expelled. I just thought he just left due to ‘major’ differences.

        1. Yes, Kyle, the whole German Section was dumped in 1912, and largely due to the fact that Rudolf Steiner took issue with the announcement that Jiddhu Krishnamurti had been declared as the reincarnated Christ-Jesus. Since this was opposed to what Steiner had been carefully describing since giving his four great Gospel interpretations, beginning in November 1907, he simply spoke up about it as being wrong. He had no intention of quitting, or that the German Section should be dissolved, but Annie Besant called for expulsion. This is why Steiner found himself in Berlin in February 1913, in order to announce the new direction under the banner of Anthroposophy.

          With regard to what appears as a kind of “miraculous occurrence” concerning the cousin coming to the young boy in her etheric body, it is good to ponder the general consideration, often observed, which is that if Miracles are not happening then something is wrong.

  2. Hi Hazel,

    Getting a late start tonight with these comments, which are so wonderful. Maverick, who is an independent thinker for sure, brought tears to my eyes when he said:

    “Steve, I’d welcome your input also on these questions, as I value your wisdom.”

    Wow, I had been wondering for months if he thought I had anything of relevance to say, and so, thank you for these kind words. Kind words like these can give a whole new impetus to what needs to be said. Hazel, you had indicated an important parameter between the Being Anthroposophia and the New Isis. You said She had human parameters in answer to Kyle’s question. This is important.

    So, it is extremely important that you cite both lecture 7 of GA 258, and also the lecture from February 3, 1913, which is all about Dante. Yet, some six months before, Steiner alerted his listening audience to this. He never said it again:

    “In the successive epochs of human evolution we find one remarkable phenomenon. I could give examples of what I have just told you of the confusing way in which initiates on reincarnating sometimes appear to have come down from their heights. You would probably be much surprised if I told you, for instance, in what way Dante was reincarnated in the nineteenth century. But it is not my task here to discuss further this result of my own investigation and what was established for me. Rather have I to bring forward with strong proof the things known to everyone conversant with occultism, letting everything else recede into the background and stating nothing that is not generally recognised where bona fide occultism is upheld.”

    https://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA138/English/AP1980/19120826p01.html

    Now, if you read Steiner’s next lecture to his Berlin audience, which was given the next day, February 4, 1913, he goes into detail about the three early emissaries in his life, which progressively brought him to the anthroposophical initiative. The first was his own cousin, who had committed suicide, and appeared to him as a young boy of maybe seven or eight years old at the Pottschach railway station. She pleads to him to “help her now and later”, and then disappears into the wood stove. Steiner knew that he would have difficulty in explaining this, but makes further inquiries in order to find out that a beloved member of the family had killed herself. He saw it especially in his father. He saw a measure of affection that had formerly been his, transferred to the niece. Thus, this is when Rudolf Steiner first woke up to the outside world. The Cousin remained as a fixture, which we have until the thousands become a million.

    Of course, the Catholic church has minions, and here we are as scrubs. Thus, the Being Anthroposophia likely has a long future. Maybe, one day She can die; don’t hold your breath, though.

    Hazel, it is worth looking at what Steiner says in lecture 8 about the 21 more years for success. Never happened. It could be a factor for consideration, and why the ship still flags, weaves, yawns, and somehow still misses the rocks and the whirlpool.

  3. Hi Hazel. A few questions arose from reading this excellent message, or excerpt, you’ve given us. I’m definitely one of those he spoke of who wishes to be an independent thinker, so I guess responsibility for my thoughts go along with that, which I’m okay with. But to the questions:

    Is this invisible being synonymous with the “Helper” that Jesus promised his followers? The One which the church calls the Holy Spirit? Or is this a different being that works mainly with the Anthroposophic movement?

    My other question is where the Christ fits in, as I’ve always understood Steiner’s view to be that we have “not I, but Christ in me”, a phrase he repeatedly uses? If this being is synonymous with Holy Spirit, I can see the connection. But if it’s another being entirely, then I need to do more research in an attempt to discover just who this being is, and how this being fits in with the others.

    Steve, I’d welcome your input also on these questions, as I value your wisdom.

    1. Hi Maverick – I have long pondered these correspondences myself. I have studied the Pistis Sophia which gives the origins of this Divine Being, who is the counterpart of Christ. Steiner tells us it is not the Christ we lack but the wisdom of Christ that we must cultivate so that we can understand the meaning of the Earth which the Christ impulse imparts to humanity. They must go hand in hand – in us…

      I do see this invisible being as an extension of the Holy Spirit, just as I see the Christ as an extension of the Father God. For me it’s about what dimension we want to center on…To comprehend the godhead we have to have the helper – the mediator – the comforter, & all the levels of the various 9 Hierarchies that are further extensions of this Divine Trinity, just as we are, IF we rise to meet our true destiny as the 10th Hierarchy – which is what Anthroposophia is here to help us do before she goes on with her own further destiny…Just as Christ is for everyone, so is this being whose name means the wisdom of the human being, for all humanity…

      1. Thank you Hazel; very helpful answer. I like the idea that Anthroposophia is an extension of the Spirit, as Christ is of the Father, and thus is Wisdom for us, or as you said, the Wisdom of Christ. Which leads me to another question – is this being then equated with the new Isis? Or is the new Isis someone else?

        Also helpful was your phrase “what dimension we want to center on”, because this is my current focus. I’m at the point where I wish to spend more of my conscious time in the spiritual world (or in what I also term the 4th dimension), but I also want to be careful about not getting mixed up with the wrong beings in that world, which is why my interest in clarifying these beings.

        1. Yes, it is important to have the discernment to recognize the signature of the beings we seek to work with. I was doing some research the other day into sacred geometry & this book came up: The Fourth Dimension: Sacred Geometry, Alchemy, and Mathematics (CW 324a). Have you worked with it…?

          I am trying to give a little nutshell summery of sacred geometry in the pageant I am writing for the ASA AGM, but I find it all so complicated. I may just stick with a few quotes. Anything you care to share would be welcome.

          As far as the New Isis is concerned, I see it like this: when we become initiated we carry a new name, when we are promoted we get a new title, just as Michael was an Archangel & is now an Archai, & before that he had many names like Marduck…etc…If humanity can do the work called for now with Anthroposophia then we will be able to rise to the vibration of the New Isis – another name for the Holy Spirit who holds a function for the evolution of humanity.

          1. Again, thank you Hazel – very helpful information. I wasn’t aware of this book you mention on 4th dimension, but will certainly look into it, as I’ve been researching the subject. I have a friend who’s interested in Sacred Geometry, so she may also be interested in it. There’s not a lot I can share on it, other than the few things I mentioned on this blog about a month back. For now, I’ve been nudged not to share on this, and I believe it has to do with the fact that only a few are interested in the 4th dimension. Most people are finding it a struggle just to master their 3-dimensional self. I recently turned 65, and have worked almost 40 years on mastering that 3-dimensional self – that is to say that it’s not an easy undertaking. To know thyself is to know God, since we are his/her offspring, and it’s only after 40 years of work that I feel ready to at least make an attempt to enter into this 4th dimension of the spiritual world.

            Something that may be of interest also to you – I’m planning to enroll in Applied Anthroposophy through the ASA when it becomes available in September. Someone (perhaps you?) was thoughtful enough to mail me a postcard for Building the Temple of the Heart, which is where I got the lead on the Applied opportunity. Of course it’ll all be online for me, since I’m in Canada.

            1. Yes, I hope to lead one of the chrysalis groups for Applied Anthroposophy. It will be good to have you there!

              We read this tonight in our Sunday study from The Being of Anthroposophy, by Rudolf Steiner, February 3, 1913. Berlin. A Lecture given during the First General Meeting of the Anthroposophical Society at Berlin.

              “…This spirit is actually something we must indicate in essence, as the being of our cause. It is also what claims our best human forces, insofar as we feel moved to join this spiritual movement…

              The Being of Anthroposophy is intimatly connected with the Being of our Time…the essence of Anthroposophy…

              For Dante, life within the philosophical element, within the spiritual world, was a direct, personal relationship – as personal as any relationship within what is called today the real, material world.

              How then does the consciousness soul confront Sophia? This is done so that it brings the I into direct relationship with Sophia while at the same expressing -much more so than the objective being of Sophia � the activity of the I within the relationship between the consciousness soul and this Sophia. “I love Sophia” was the natural feeling of an age that still had to encounter the being we designate as Philosophy – an age that was preparing the consciousness soul and, out of the relationship between the I and the consciousness soul (on which the greatest value must be placed), was working toward representing Sophia as simply as it represented everything else. It was natural for the time of the intellectual soul – which was preparing for the consciousness soul- to express this relationship to Philosophy. And because things came to expression slowly and gradually, this relationship was being prepared during Greco-Latin times…

              Outwardly, however, we can also see this relationship of human beings to Philosophia developing to a certain height in the pictorial representations of Philosophy floating down on clouds and, later, in Philosophia’s expression (even if she bears another name) when we see her gaze full of kindly feelings that once again express the relationship to the consciousness soul…

              spiritual movements have their time and day, and that, just as a day has its morning and its evening, spiritual movements, too, have their morning and evening in the history of humanity’s development. We know we are living in the age that is preparing the spirit-self. Thus, we know that, though we live in the age of the consciousness soul, the spirit-self is being prepared…

              What, therefore, must be developed? It must unfold that, once again, as a matter of course, a “Sophia” becomes present. But we must learn to relate this Sophia to the consciousness soul, bring her down directly to human beings. This is happening during the age of the consciousness soul. And thereby Sophia becomes the being who directly enlightens human beings. After Sophia has entered human beings, she must take their being with her and present it to them outwardly, objectively. Thus, Sophia will be drawn into the human soul and arrive at the point of being so inwardly connected with it that a love poem as beautiful as Dante wrote may be written about her.

              Sophia will become objective again, but she will take with her what humanity is, and objectively present herself in this form. Thus, she will present herself not only as Sophia, but as Anthroposophia, as the Sophia who, after passing through the human soul, through the very being of the human being, henceforth bears that being within her, and in this form she will confront enlightened human beings as the objective being Sophia who once stood before the Greeks.

              Here I must leave the matter to all those who wish to examine in even greater detail, following the destiny of Sophia, Philosophia, and Anthroposophia, how we may show how humanity develops progressively through those parts of the soul we call the intellectual soul, the consciousness soul, and the spirit-self People will learn how profoundly what anthroposophy gives us is based in our whole being. What we receive through anthroposophy is our very own being.

              This once floated toward us in the form of a celestial goddess with whom we were able to enter into relationship. This divine being lived on as Sophia and Philosophia, and now we can once again bring her out of ourselves and place her before us as the fruit of true anthroposophical self-knowledge. We can wait patiently until the world is willing to test the depth of the foundations of what we have to say, right down to the smallest details. It is the essence of anthroposophy that its own being consists of the being of the human, and its effectiveness, its reality, consists in that we receive from anthroposophy what we ourselves are and what we must place before ourselves, because we must practice self-knowledge.

              1. Wonderful Hazel; thank you for sharing this. What you shared seems foundational, and I’ll return to it repeatedly until it lives in me.

                Steiner said: ” What we receive through anthroposophy is our very own being.” While true, it seems to me that what we receive is a part, or a third of our being from it. I retain memories of the celestial goddess that was/is Sophia, and I also retain memories of the love of Wisdom that is Philosophia. Just as we are a 3-part being, Anthroposophia seems to me to complete my triune nature. The challenge now for me, aside from nurturing these three parts of my being, is to move into that fourth dimension of being, also described by Paul as the “length and width and height and depth of the love of Christ”, thus entering into the fullness of God. This may be where I’ll need the aid of the New Isis.

              2. Maverick – This sharing is so succinct & right to the core of my heart…like a key that is unlocking these dimensions within myself as well, thank you…The connection of the triune nature of the divine Feminine that brings us to the altar of the Christos, calling in the New Human Being as the 5th element of the New Isis…Shazam – I will have to work with this…Bless you

              3. It may interest you to know Hazel, that I’m having the same chills. I just noticed your reply after reading a note I made two years prior to today, from the book Theosophy (quoting from my online version, so don’t know what it is in the hard copy, which I also have):

                “Henceforth he [the student or initiate] holds converse no longer with the things that are shaped by the spirit, but with the shaping spirit itself.”

                Something else for me to go back, and reacquaint myself with the context of this thought in the book. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.