Topic on User talk:Diederik

Hello

I have been studying Rudolf Steiner's heritage for 8 years. I confirmed to myself factually (including first-hand experiences) a great number of his claims. I also studied other rationally-minded sources touching spirituality. And the following dilemma arose for me. There are sufficient reasons to believe that Steiner' picture of reality is correct. However, if you take "Traditionalism" school ("Perennialism" of XX century) represented by people like Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy, there are provisions which are quite different from what Steiner said. I would like to address the subject of Supreme Divinity, in this respect. According to Steiner, God is FREE in "his" foundational work of issuing the reality's content. Nothing forces the Godhead to create the world. It is a free sacrificial act, not a necessity. This is expressly stated in the "Self-knowledge and God-knowledge" lecture cycle. Also, in Steiner's esoteric cosmogony, "Trinity" is the ultimate concept for understanding what God "is". Traditionalism (which insisted that it expounded the truths of ancient metaphysics, tied to alleged "Primordial tradition"), on the other hand, says that the Supreme Divinity/the Absolute is NOT free to choose whether to bring forth the reality or not. It brings forth the reality out of necessity, because its inner law is about doing this. Also, Traditionalism holds that the first priority concept for understanding the Supreme principle is "Metaphysical Zero", i.e. universal possibility-aspect of Infinity. Other considerations like "Unity", "Trinity" etc. come later.

How to reconcile these contradictions ? What is closer to the truth ? I think the way these questions are answered, strongly impacts our view on God and man relationship's specifics. If you would be so kind, could you please leave a few words about Guenon's critique of the reincarnation idea, as well? He opposed it vehemently. To Steiner reincarnation was the fact, directly witnessed by his clairvoyant insight.

I really appreciate your attention

Thanks for your question and contribution.

Your post includes several questions, in summary:

• The nature of the highest divinity or Trinity, and whether its creation is a free sacrificial act or one born from necessity

• Guenon’s critique of reincarnation

Let me start with a short note regarding Rene Guenon.

As we learn from Steiner’s Karma of Untruthfulness lectures, it is important to not only look at the contents of a message and information, but also of its source, who is behind it and why.

Now this is not a judgment of course, but is my impression and humble opinion that Guenon was characterized as an individual by a strong intellectual vanity. As his bio shows (just check wikipedia to start), Guenon – catholically raised and a product of Jesuit rigorous intellectual training and discipline - was negative and fighting the occult movements, the gnosticm, Blavatsky’s theosophy .. on grounds that they were intellectually empty or lacked a good understanding. In a nutshell he saw it as his purpose and mission to give ‘the necessary intellectual foundation for a proper understanding of its spirit’ (hubris, as the spirit one needs to experience in order to talk about it, else it's empty thought forms). And as cherry of the cake, he later converted to Islam as ‘one of the only real tradition accessible to Westerners’.

This gives a good starting point to answer your question, the schism between intellect and spirit .. because we see here someone who takes a dogmatic approach to fight against the spirit in its many faces, and chooses for the fatalism of Islam which resonates with this dogmatic materialistic-mechanistic intellectual view of the work that qualifies as Ahrimanic. (as a sidenote, one is reminded of the big bang devised by the catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, still the basis for why people today think that they Man, the crown of creation, is but a speck in a mechanistic universe). Rudolf Steiner also describes this correspondence between materialism and Islam, materialistic intellectuality leading to fatalism.

Guenon seemed critical of mostly everything, also science, the catholic church .. but in the first place the true spiritual to which he opposed his own true intellectual metaphysics.

It is thus not a surprise to find him fighting reincarnation which is essentially about the eternal spiritual core of Man. For context see Steiner’s lectures where he positions the abolishing of the spirit, then the soul (see more here). And Guenon, imho, like every soul, came with karmic threads as part of (connected with) a certain wave or impulse.

then:

Regarding the nature of the highest divinity, the answer could be quite short. Everyone who has experienced the higher spirit world and the (god-)experience of unity through initiation, will tell you that there is no way to capture or explain it intellectually .. simply because our consciousness, language and intellect is much too limited and incapable of grasping higher levels of consciousness.

You can relate this to the CoC-ladder Schema FMC00.048 on Twelve Conditions of Consciousness (CoC). This is a question about teleology and purpose, and a simple image to express this is to think of the axis driving a car’s wheels, and now imagine this axis tries to figure out what is going on .. why it is spinning so fast and sometimes slow, why it is moving, turning, where it is going, who is deciding on direction, and why? The axis is just at a lower level than the car as a whole, and the human being who devised it and is driving it. Schema FMC00.471A is an illustration of that idea: the gap of 'level 4 trying to grasp and comprehend level 12' is orders of magnitude wider than, say, a stone trying to understand a human being.

That being said, imho the dichotomy might be simply resolved philosophically if one assumes that the act of giving is the intrinsic nature of the trinity, if intrinsic nature can be seen correspond to necessity. Hereby we are going around the problem of freedom, because our concept of free will does not apply to the godhead. Freedom is something relevant for humanity as spiritual hierarchy under development, in its current stage of evolution. At higher CoC stages, sacrifice becomes an intrinsic property as part of creating and giving, rather than receiving.

But my first spontaneous answer above was the most correct, it’s just a question beyond the limits of sensible scope .. as Nietzsche stated, it’s important to deeply question and qualify a problem, so as to focus on the right kind of problems or questions, and so imho this is just a theoretical problem, as they can follow from our faculty of thinking, but beyond what Man can take into current human consciousness .. so, something we should not break our heads on. Also on this point Steiner explains that if one continues to ask ‘why’ there comes a point the question does not make sense any more. Let me conclude with a quote by Rudolf Steiner also regarding your question, from 1903-11-16-GA090A.  

Diederik, thank you for the reply. Your explanation resonates with what I was thinking as well. The notions, applicable to human life, are elevated to a new level of meaning, when higher planes of awareness are discussed.

Now I can see more clearly that if the passages (touching this theme of freedom) from his several lecture courses are unified into one monolithic message, then it gets more obvious what Steiner really implied saying that “only God is truly free” in the lecture course that I pointed to. God’s “freedom” lies in the fact that “his” dynamics is opposite in its specifics to acting towards some goal or object due to the compulsion of inner egotistic impulsivity. It is the case with a human being who feels impelled (“subconsciously”/astrally) to act for the sake of egocentrically pleasurable consequences an object can provide, and this means being unfree. Also, God isn’t motivated by the necessity of some logical (“why”) reasoning. Godhead’s nature means giving the overflow of love (sacrificial selfless energy) to the “ideal” of perfect creation. Dichotomy of “freedom” and “necessity” is resolved in this divine state.

However, I actually used this question regarding the reconciliation of views as a starting point to make the transition to a more encompassing and complex topic. It is about the connection between Initiation and the ancient Metaphysics.

There are indeed questionable nuances about Rene Guenon’s figure. His work contains a number of speculative and dubious moments. However, it appears that, when it comes to the subject of Initiation, he (in general) presented the body of information which was objectively there. He came into contact with it, since he read much and communicated with members of secret societies etc.

So, there were a number of people who expounded the same doctrine on what “High” Initiation was really about in the ancient times (in the Greater Mysteries, as opposed to the Lesser Mysteries). And the ancient spiritual Metaphysics with its central concept of The Absolute (the unconditioned Supreme principle, which allegedly stands “higher” than the Trinitarian God, i.e. Unity + its operative Duality) played an important part in it, among other constituents. It was about reaching the enigmatic “initiatic states” (not identical to any kind of exact clairvoyance, as I understand it) via activating “intellect of the heart” (Noetic intelligence) in a metaphysical endeavor to discern the meaning of the esoteric Symbols. This activity slowly led to transposing one’s centre of awareness into The Absolute (“Supreme Identity”) with an array of consequences.

May I ask you to read, fully and attentively, this article (“the concept of Initiation”) and share your remarks on it ? https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-concept-of-initiation/

And then I will say what I think. I know that the author is also a controversial figure, but it’s a matter of scrutinizing the aforementioned objective body of info, regardless of who presents it

I am anxious about specifying Steiner and spiritual science position in relation to these issues. Because (if you read this article) it seems that Steiner remained in the domain of Lesser Mysteries (from the standpoint of the aforesaid doctrine) with the emphasis on clairvoyance and the moral order of reality

Dear, I have read the document as you asked. Before I answer though and we go into this, let's take a step back. As forum threads often divert by following the natural flow and trains of thought, I want to make sure we focus on what's most important for you, so start with the end in mind.

In response to your last comment, there are three elements

• (a) the document by Julius Evola on initiation you put forth

• (b) information on the theme or subject matter of initiation;
• -> (b1) contents of the Evola document - the information in and thesis of this document

• -> (b2) knowledge about initiation, besides this document

• (c) the question or thesis you put forth on the basis of (b1), ie that Rudolf Steiner remained in the domain of the lesser mysteries. .

In my view, the document contents (b1) does not allow for logical inference, and to draw conclusions would be abductive logic, using  ‘incomplete observations’ (a polite way to qualify the contents) to then draw ‘possible’ (but in this case erroneous) explanations or conclusions.

Hence our discussion can go into three directions:

• (a) comment on the document in terms of form and contents, incl. author with sources and background;

• (b) discuss the subject matter of initiation (not limited to this document)

• (c) comment on your last question/thesis.

It seems to me that (c) is your real question and thus the most interesting. However, to address this question in an appropriate way, a different perspective is needed, not (b1) but (b2).

So, my suggestion would be to focus on (c) with links to the required background foundation (b2), and then afterwards we could come back on (a) and (b1) separately.

Would that be OK for you, or do you see it differently?

I’d like to ask you to then restate your question (c) again on the Talk page for the topic page ‘Mystery School tradition’ (or ‘Initiation’), that is a better place (than this current thread on my personal profile home) .. and then we can go into it there. Is that OK?

The reason I sent this article is your statement that Guenon had a mechanistic-materialistic kind of intellectual view and there was nothing pertaining to the actual knowledge of the spirit in his writings (just empty thought-forms). While, in truth, it is a bit more complicated. Therefore, I assumed that you (probably) weren’t that familiar with the “traditional” view on Initiation and its connection with “metaphysics”, which Guenon, Evola and some others presented in their works and whose particulars they discussed among themselves. So, I gave this sketch by Evola to provide a rough, preliminary idea. And to understand (from your reaction) : to what extent are you versed in this theme ? (right now my question is this). Then I would ponder which direction should the conversation take, regarding my interest in grasping Rudolf Steiner’s position in this “initiation controversy”

If you are familiar with the theme, I’ll try to formulate questions more precisely, and you decide where they should be discussed. Otherwise, some other texts (regarding the traditional view on Initiation) should be examined for more details. Like “Initiation and Spiritual realisation” and “Perspectives on Initiation” books by Guenon, for example.

The thing is, the term “metaphysics” means something different (according to the doctrine of Initiation in question) from what is often understood under this term (operations of a discursive mind which thinks abstractly about non-physical principles of reality). The metaphysical concepts centered around “the Absolute” idea (which can be found in Neoplatonism, Hinduism, Taoism, and which are also given by Guenon in some of his works) serve as a preparation. The real intention is about developing the powers of inner clarity through the work with Symbolism, which are different from both ordinary mental reasoning and mystical experiences. “Metaphysics” in a deeper sense means the domain beyond the world of finite forms, of “Manifestation” (when demarcations can be made between individual forces, beings, structures). That is, beyond “Nature” in the broadest sense of the word, which (according to some ancient views) includes not only this 3d/sense-perceptible environment, but also astral and heavenly planes (“where” certain demarcations between spiritual individualities can be made). “Metaphysics” in this case means the domain of the Infinite; it transcends everything existential (delimited and conditioned) and yet gives “birth” to it through the activity of unfolding the chain of primordial potencies (that includes the Unity as an unmanifest principle of all Being). Therefore, one aspiring for “great liberation” (who wants to anchor the centre of his spiritual presence in the reality that is beyond anything formal) is supposed to achieve this via developing the powers and reaching the states, which can allow him to identify with the Unconditioned. That’s why the exponents of that doctrine asserted that the “initiatic states” (they can’t be adequately described at all to somebody who never experienced them) were different from super-sensible perception. The latter orientates between individual (demarcated) spiritual entities/influences and thus remains in the domain of “Nature”.

I am describing all this from the standpoint of that doctrine, of course (to the measure of my capacity for understanding). Not that I am sure that there is “something” higher than the Trinity or that there are such “initiatic states” achievable

I just noticed the rift between Steiner’s treatment of Initiation subject and the one which can be found in the authors under consideration. For Steiner, Initiation was about achieving clairvoyant perception and establishing conscious links with the occult forces of “nature”. That’s why those authors thought that he lacked better understanding As far as I remember (correct me if I am wrong), RS didn’t speak of Initiation in Mysteries of any kind as a matter of reaching “Supreme identity”

Hi (Eugene?) .. just a quick response, besides the structural follow up on contents which I propose to do on the page for ‘Mystery Schools tradition’ or ‘Initiation’, if you want to.

I’d like to clarify something upfront.

We are in danger here of talking across purposes, because there is a well known schism between people who talk from experience regarding initiation and the spiritual, and those who don’t.

That is not a value judgement, Rudolf Steiner also described on many occasions that even advanced Individualities, for various reasons, were not able (yet) to embrace, accept or come to spiritual science in their incarnation in the 19-20th century (examples Haeckel, Nietzsche, etc).

This pattern is still there today of course: one finds people who are in front of the gate of the spiritual but cannot accept even the existence of a spiritual reality. Others are pivoting or doubting somewhere in the greyzone, others are ignorant and just not ready for the question or consideration, whilst still others are fighting the spiritual out of their current belief system. All this is normal and follows spiritual maturity and karmic history, the population consists of different cohorts or segments at different stages of their karmic balance and development between the intellectual and consciousness soul. Faculties that are an antidote to conflict, like openness of mind, asking questions, .. also relate to this.

The sources you mention accept that things like initiation and a higher metaphysics exist (as one can hardly ignore their reality in history), but then go on and want own subject matter and provide an intellectual explanation. This to me is like spiritism in the 19th century, it sidetracks from the truth. It is not that these sources are not informed, or not good scholars, or don’t come up with certain things that may be true, but untruth is worse and more dangerous than ignorance.

No authority should be granted to people who don’t have the credentials to be able to talk about these things from the wisdom of experience. And that is a characteristic of the FMC wiki and its choice of and focus on certain sources.

There are thousands of books by respected scholars through the ages, and often people resonate with this or that stream of thought for good reasons of karmic history and spiritual maturity .. one lands where one needs to be in order to take the next step. Therefore it would not be realistic to expect all of us to speak the same language, and so we can respectfully accept and agree to disagree.

Initiation is a pathway with many stages. Seeing the spiritual in nature is one stage, experiencing the astral world is another, and the lower and higher spirit world are yet different worlds and experiences. Each world has corresponding faculties that Man can have and develop, whether astral or mental travel, clairvoyance, evocation of spirits, etc. The experience of Unity that is being talked about in the sources you mention is just one stage, and not the final one, as Man can develop capabilities beyond this (eg learn and master the language of creation). And obviously not everyone can or will develop all of what is possible. But the best way to the mystery of initiation, if you live with this question, is to pick up practice of self-initiation and commit to exercises yourself. Even the experience of vacancy of mind in the first step of Franz Bardon’s IIH will deepen your perspective more than reading any number of books (as the saying goes .. an ounce of practice is better than tons of theory).

Happy to take this further in a structured way as I offered before, and go in to the other questions you had (w/ regards to Rudolf Steiner and lesser/greater mysteries, and certain things you wrote that would be good to clarify because they are not correct, such as  “For Steiner, Initiation was about achieving clairvoyant perception and establishing conscious links with the occult forces of “nature”.)

What I wrote above might require deepening and in-depth explanations for every sentence, and the site contains materials to assist in explaining for the earnest open minded student interested in learning. This would however lead us too far here.

Nevertheless, to stay on topic, the following is a first set of pages worthwhile to study as a foundation to initialize’s one’s understanding:

•    Man's transformation and spiritualization, Mystery School tradition, initiation,

•    Franz Bardon and initiation, IIH, initiation exercises.

•    God experience, Stages of clairvoyance, Kundalini.

If you’re interested in symbols, take a look at

•    Symbols, Book of Ten Pages - as related to what is on ‘Cosmic fractal’

Also relevant to our exchange and comment above:

• Spiritual guidance of mankind, About this site#Sources, Sources of spiritual science

I'm not familiar with Traditionalism, but just to add a few references to Steiner on the subject. The statement "God is free" or "God is unfree" predicates something about God. Steiner said that to the highest no predicate can be added (see this lecture; the passage, several paragraphs long, starts with "Let us suppose that we encounter"). In this connection, his mentions of Erigena and negative theology also come to mind. Moreover, the concepts 'freedom' and 'necessity' cannot be uncritically carried over from objects even to human actions; freedom of will entails seeming paradoxes where a person freely chooses what is necessary.

With respect to reincarnation, it may be helpful to consider an historical point of view in addition to metaphysics. Aside from his own lectures, Steiner also mentions that Lessing reached such a view.

(to Ablaut) Thanks, that was helpful as well. I took a break from studying Steiner in order to examine some other sources concerning esotericism (to avoid getting attached to one source too strongly and keep an objective, dispassionate attitude) and I forgot about some important passages from his other lecture courses.