Thanks for this. I am a Teilhard Catholic, a fellow traveler with Steiner (especially of what he says about the blood shed at the crucifixion) and a dedicated reader of the very great tome of Christian esoteric thought, the anonymous Meditations on the Tarot (with a preface by von Balthasar and a postscripte by Bede Griffiths!!!!!) which I commend to one and all, Tarot or no Tarot. But really, thanks for this. Hard to do.
This particular lecture by Steiner had a monumental impact on my own understanding of the relation between the Buddha and Christ impulses (in the Earthly stream of evolution about 2000 years ago). To be clear, and as you also pointed out, this is not to set up some binary opposition between the two impulses. We're going through an evolutionary process and each new impulse is supposed to bring a new level of unfolding for the Spirit that works and expresses through humanity.
The Buddha impulse was meant to help raise the Earthly self from the web of entanglement with bodily life, to differentiate that from the higher spiritual being that purifies and perfects itself, practically becoming master over the flesh. This is not negated by the Christ impulse but is led further. The higher spiritual being enters and fertilizes the Earthly spectrum and with this begins its gradual redemption through human spiritual activity. This can be achieved only through the power of Love, which is not something that we can make out of our separate efforts at self-perfection but flows from the Source of Being. It is synonymous with the idea of 'no being left behind'.
***
"Buddha's doctrine of suffering had a mighty and vivid effect on the hearts of human beings. Countless people learned the great truth of being liberated from suffering through the extinction of the thirst for being, and they also learned how to strive outward from their earthly incarnations. Truly, the highest peak of human evolution is placed before our souls by such an endeavor.
Let us now view the period that comprises twelve centuries — six hundred years each before and after the birth of Christ. We need to stress that the Mystery of Golgotha took place in the middle of that period. From the age of Buddha, six hundred years before Golgotha, let us now call special attention only to what the Buddha felt at the sight of a corpse and what he taught in relation to this. Now that we have done this, let us immediately consider the time six hundred years after the Mystery of Golgotha, when countless souls and eyes turned to the cross on which a corpse was hanging. It is from this corpse that the impulses emanated that spiritualized life and signaled the glad tidings that death can be conquered by life. That, then, is the exact opposite of what Buddha felt when he saw a dead body.
Buddha saw in a corpse an indication of the insignificance and the futility of life. By contrast, the human beings six hundred years after the Event of Golgotha looked up to the corpse on the cross in a spirit of devout fervor. It was to them a sign of life, and their souls came to be imbued with the certainty that existence is not suffering, but that it carries over beyond death into a state of bliss. The crucified cross of the Christ Jesus six hundred years after the Event of Golgotha came to be a memorial symbol of life, of the resurrection of life, and of the victory over death and all suffering; six hundred years before the Mystery of Golgotha a corpse was the memorial symbol for the fact that human beings are subjected to misery and suffering because their thirst for being causes them to enter the physical world. Never has there been a more momentous reversal in the entire evolution of the human race.
If the human being's entry into the physical world had been considered as suffering six hundred years before the Event of Golgotha, how does the soul perceive the great truth of the misery of life after this event? How is this former truth perceived by people who look up to the cross of Golgotha with a high degree of understanding? Is birth suffering, as Buddha had said? Those who look up to the cross of Golgotha with a knowledgeable soul and who feel united with it will say to themselves: “This birth leads a human being into a world that had the opportunity to invest the Christ with its own elements.” They were glad to enter this earth on which Christ had walked. And through the connection with Christ, the soul had gained the strength to find its way up to the spiritual worlds, as well as the knowledge that birth is not suffering; birth is rather the gate through which one must pass to find the Savior — the Savior who has wrapped Himself into the same earthly materials that constitute the human physical sheath.
Is sickness suffering? Those who understood the Impulse of Golgotha in the true sense said: “No, it is not!” Even though mankind today cannot yet understand what the true spiritual life is that streams into them with Christ, people in the future will learn to understand it. They will know that a person whose innermost being is pervaded by the power of Christ, that an individual who allows himself or herself to become imbued with the Christ-Impulse will be able to overcome all illness with the help of the strong and healthy powers that he or she develops from within. This is so because Christ is the great healer of mankind. His power comprises everything that emanates from a spiritual well and is really able to develop the strong, healing power that can conquer illness. No, illness is not suffering, but rather an opportunity to overcome an impediment or a handicap by the development of the Christ-Force within us.
In the same way we must gain a clear understanding about the difficulties of old age. The weaker our limbs become, the greater the opportunity for us to grow in spirit and to master our infirmity through the power of Christ within us. Old age is not suffering because with every day we grow further into the spiritual world. And neither is death suffering because it is conquered in the resurrection. Death has been conquered through the Event of Golgotha.
Moreover, can we say that being separated from what we love constitutes suffering? No! The souls that imbue themselves with the Christ-Force know that love can forge indestructible spiritual bonds beyond all material hindrances. And there is nothing in life between birth and death and between death and rebirth to which we cannot spiritually find the way through the Christ-Impulse. If we imbue ourselves with the Christ-Impulse, it is unthinkable that we could possibly be separated from what we love in the long run. The Christ brings us together with what we love.
By the same token, “to be united with what we do not love” cannot be suffering because the Christ-Impulse teaches us that once we have accepted it into our souls, we must love everything in its own measure. The Christ-Impulse shows us the way, and when we have found this way, “to be united with what we do not love” can never cause suffering for then there will no longer be anything that we do not embrace lovingly. And “not to attain what one desires” can no longer be suffering either if one embraces Christ, for the human sensibilities, feelings, and desires are purified and ennobled by the Christ-Impulse in such a way that human beings desire only what they are meant to receive. They no longer suffer from the lack of things, for if they are meant to do without something or someone, such lack is for their ennoblement; and the Christ-Power gives them the strength to perceive it as a purification. When this happens, the feeling of lacking things no longer evokes suffering.
So what is the Event of Golgotha? It is the gradual abolition of the teaching by the great Buddha that life is suffering. No other event has had a greater impact on the evolution and the nature of life in this world than the Event of Golgotha, and that is why we can understand that it will continue to work for mankind and have tremendous positive consequences for humanity in the future." (GA 109, L VIII)
Thank you for sharing this. It makes me feel the importance of recognizing the difference between the Christic and Ahrimanic impulses. There are powerful forces at present deceiving people into the belief that death and suffering can be overcome technologically. That path is a trap.
I have been reviewing Tomberg's Meditations on the Tarot, and this passage fits so nicely I had to share it. The Tree of Life, of course, is a symbol for the etheric life forces which humanity partook in before the Fall.
"But does not the Bible say that the approach to the Tree of Life is
defended and that “at the east of the garden of Eden God placed the
Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to
the Tree of Life” (Genesis iii, 24)? Yes, it is defended, but the defence is not
absolute and general; it is specific. Read what the Bible says here: “Then the
LORD God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the Tree of Life,
and eat, and live for ever…” (Genesis iii, 22).
Now, it is a matter here of defence against putting forth the hand and taking from the Tree of Life, and it is this and only this that the flaming sword at the garden of Eden prevents.
“Putting forth the hand and taking”—this is the motif, the method and the
ideal of science. It is the will-to-power underlying the scientific attitude
which is prevented by the flaming sword of the Guardian of Eden from
repeating the act committed with respect to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But the motif, method and ideal of Hermeticism is contrary to that of science. The will-to-serve underlies the fundamental Hermetic attitude.
Instead of putting forward the hand to take, the human being opens his mind,
his heart and his will to receive that which will be graciously bestowed upon
him. The inspiration, illumination and intuition that he seeks are not so much
conquests accomplished by his will; they are rather gifts from above,
preceded by the efforts of the human will endeavouring to become worthy."
Jesus teaches us we must be ready to hate our family to follow him and that child abusers should drown themselves - all the way to the lowest millstone. So yeah. Buddha, a rich kid, taught the tribes of humanity with the lowest testosterone level to remain passive. It’s still working. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 and elsewhere we learn Christ became Sophia. Sophia is fucking pissed. That’s why Shi called the Marshall and Maui fires.
Here is my take on "Christ as Evolutionary Power", and bearing much more than a teaching, like the Buddha's Eightfold Path. In other words, Christ as the Second Adam, known as Adam Kadmon to the Rhineland Mystics. The renewal of the fine Physical Phantom Body through Christ.
Always enjoy Matt reading/hearing what you have to say.
One thing you say here is not clear to me. If “'God' is more an emergent construct that humanity is collectively creating, rather than a pre-existing Being that created humans," then how can you also say that "the divine always remains in excess of human attempts to understand or control it"?
Are these two mutually contradictory positions both true specifically because of coincidentia oppositorum??
If I recall correctly, I was saying that the "emergent social construct" theory of God is what metamodern thinkers seem to be suggesting. I do not reject that view, but I think it is partial. In addition to being a being we participate in and suffer with, God is also a primordial personality, an eternal life through and by whom we ourselves are born and to whom we perpetually return.
How to resolve this dipolarity in the divine imagination? I am not sure there is a logical solution to this problem. In fact, I don't believe it to be properly a "problem" at all. The coincidentia oppositorum is (to repeat a cliche but I think not unimportant line) a mystery to be experienced and not a problem to be solved.
Thanks, Matt, for your gentle reminder pointing to the moon.
I reread the article to find what I had gotten wrong and indeed found the exact point that confused me between what you were quoting from Brendan and/or John and what were your own ideas.
What you say here in your response is a clear iteration in your own words of the Immanent and the Transcendent, yet I still have a bit of difficulty with it.
I spent most of a lifetime submerged in the studies of a fundamental orthodox religious tradition and the only way I was able to extricate myself from it was by completely renouncing any iteration of a Personal Being. Despite that, there is still an emotional attachment that arises at times, but in general I am only able to relate to "God" as Being Itself, as the Ground of Being, the Life of Life, which inherently "seeks" to "share" Itself with something outside Itself that will be conscious of It, spontaneously giving forth of Its Goodness, Beauty, and Love so that those conscious beings will see them, acknowledge them, embody them, and enhance them, and in these ways partake of Its "God-ness."
So returning to this article, in speaking about your very personal and beautiful sacred experience, you seem to describe it in different ways.
At first you say about it that, "I feel most comfortable now referring to as the 'Christ archetype,'” which itself is ambiguous, since what the archetype meant to Jung himself is ambiguous: is it entirely a psychic event/dynamic or is there some "objective" reality to it outside of the individual human psyche?
And then, three lines later you write, "I certainly did not relate to this being as a projection of my psyche at the time," where you seem to explicitly refer to It now as "this Being," i.e., in Its own right outside of your personal psyche, yet at the same time imply that only "at that time" you did not relate to it as a projection but that now you do?
And then returning to your response, "In addition to being a being we participate in and suffer with, God is also a primordial personality, an eternal life" - in both halves of this sentence you seem to be saying that God is "a Being," "a Personality," in other words, you see the Transcendent also as an actual "Being," and even Personal, and not just Being Itself? Let's put aside the idea that the Immanent and the Transcendent are One and the Same, or is that precisely your point?
I have not yet watched your initial response to Brendan and John in the youtube video, "Metamodern Christianity? Or Christ as Cosmogram," but I will, and I apologize if you have more clearly discussed these issues there or elsewhere.
These are all good questions, Josh. I probably can't answer them sufficiently. I can just say that I turn to Jung's psychological language mostly because I don't want to give off the impression that I am incapable of considering the possibility that this was an intra-psychic event. It did not feel that way at the time, but with some critical distance, if I am honest with myself I cannot rule out the psychological interpretation. Regardless, it was a transformative experience. It has had real effects on my sense of self and what life is about. So in a pragmatic sense, it doesn't matter! But theologically speaking, I do find it necessary to speak of the Christ Being and to relate to a divine personality. I take seriously the idea of the divine ground of existence as a Trinity or Tri-Unity, meaning that God is both Being as such as well as the Relationship that Being has to itself. Not sure I can say it any more cleary than that.
But maybe I can still nudge to say it a bit clearer.
You seem to be saying that the Ground of Being is a/the Trinity, and that this Ground of Being is both God AS Being Itself and as Relationship to Itself, both of which are still in the realm of the Transcendent, and when you speak about the "Christ Being" you seem to be speaking about something outside of that Trinity, i.e., outside of conventional Christianity and more akin with Steiner/Theosophy, where the Christ is seen as the Headmaster of a hierarchy of spiritual masters that include the Buddha and others - and perhaps might be conceived as "extensions" and "expressions" of the Godhead in that they have completely devoted and surrendered their lives and very selves to It/Him/Her/That What Is, in other words, the Immanent (which we all are but don't realize it)? Is that what you mean?
Do you have any articles or videos at your fingertips you can refer me to that are devoted to discussing these points, conceptually, practically, and in the context of Whitehead?
I am in no position to question the original formulation of the Trinity as Father (or transcendent Ground of Being), Son (or immanent expression of that Ground), and Spirit (mediating relator linking the two in the Love that builds and sustains human communities).
Christ was a shellycoat trolling his DoZen disciples - the students. He is the gentle Naga Shesha and the (mostly) harmless rainbow snake of Aboriginal Australians
Does anybody have the books from the 72 apostles? You know - the actual missionaries Christ didn’t talk down to?
I love the part where Simon is renamed Peter then gets a lesson on shitty soil … it’s got rocks in it!
These parables are parabolic and over your head.
The cohen of cone though light comes had jokes. Yeshua is Joshua - and to Josh is to jest.
If these speakers had a deeper understanding of their own bodies as described by Steiner they wouldn’t need to make the language split between explaining and training.
A masterly explication of Chrst, spiritual experience and the interior landscape in coherent conceptual terms is provided in the extensive research accounts of Yeshayahu Ben Aharon.
Given a deep and detailed enough experience of one’s body it is possible to speak of spirituality in seemingly mechanical sounding terms, and conversely to integrate oneself as spirit into the daily solid world.
It is wonderful to hear this kind of reasoning. Our own bodies are the gateway to spirit perception and cognition, but we have to apply methodology. For example, Etheric Regeneration comes first because the human etheric body has contracted to the point where it is now indentured into the physical body. As such, it needs to re-expand to its former predominately large configuration. All the bodies are undergoing the influence of Adam Kadmon. Check this out:
As you talk about “Jesus as the initial vessel for the Christ being to incarnate, but, crucially, not as the unique vessel” it seems there is something qualitatively different about Jesus vs. Buddha that represents a hierarchy of religion that puts Christianity “above” Buddhism, modern, metamodern, or otherwise. This seems to be captured by Steiner, whose scheme in Gospel of Luke suggests a pre existent entity beyond what “merely” has “emerged” over time contra to these points. Would love to hear how you reconcile your own position on Christ/Jesus (and Zarathustra for that matter) with both Steiner and Nietzsche’s elaborated schemes sometime. Looking forward to checking out your video response!
What was Nietzsche's elaborated scheme? I know about Steiner's two Jesus boys, as described intensively in Luke, which is likely too detailed to be a scheme. Also, this lecture from GA 109:
Steiner talks about two Jesus boys, though the wider theory includes what’s going on “behind the scenes” of those physical expressions. Regarding Nietzsche, he discusses Christianity as a subterranean conspiracy and slave revolt meant to subsume mystery religions in genealogy of morals which he traces philogically. (“Where several gather in my name, I am there” translates differently if we see Jesus as coming from yeshua, Joshua, etc meaning “god saves”. The Jesus story is how Jesus lived up to his name) In both cases the “traditional” historicity is challenged but so too is the meaning. Matt’s Al-chemical entheogenic interpretation would represent another, so I’m wondering with all the interpretations how are they reconciled. Brendan’s idea seems to be a cherry-picking from a “metamodern” perspective the best of all worlds, but as a former biblical scholar/evangelist I assume the historicity is taken for granted, while it’s meaning is revisioned for this post-post-modern era.
Reconciling irreconcilable gospels gets us two Jesus theories if we take steiner’s intuition as truth, while this history is ignored, or one gospel’s historicity is elevated over another if we pick and choose, but this ignores the thesis that Christianity and Jesus’s historicity may be fabricated for a greater meaning to overturn imperial values. In which case, who is to say that the original fabricators were not “metamodern” and Christianity in general was a metamodern project itself? You can read gnosticism as a postmodern queering and inversion of traditional values and synthesis of thesis and antithesis. Gospel of John and apocryphon of John is thought by scholars like April deconick to precede gospels and of Samaritan origin, where Christianity was developed as a response against a cult of personality by an “egoic” magician at the time by developing a selfless miracle worker as an ideal then historicized... there’s no end to the theories out there (some say it’s an astrotheology) but the point is the periodization of pre, modern, post, meta fails as there are multiple centers of gravity in all places in all ages, and what metamodernism is doing is no different -- maybe it is the eternal recurrence..?
I think the college was in some financial struggles so they were able to hire a 24 year old for very cheap. Don’t know about a “dark side” unless you’re just talking about atheism, but as a writer integrating the Dionysian and trying to come to terms with the beauty of suffering while philosophizing with a hammer and suffering from loneliness...there’s no reason for it to be supernatural. Speculations he had a degenerative brain disease also account for his move toward breakdown/death; i suppose if steiner prefers spiritual language to scientific there may be an equivalence of symbols/meaning there.
Regarding entheogens, my sense is the physiological effect has a psychological correlate of “letting things in” that comes off as a unitive experience of transcendence, interconnection etc. which would be framed by the cultural framework available, in this case Wattsian Christianity/modern secular Buddhism. It’s a common effect cross culturally; again, whether spiritual or scientific language, the experience may be the same, it’s primarily a phenomenon with a psychophysical effect represented in whatever language available to communicate an epochal experience. Not sure what you mean by “value-added support for a short time” or what it means to be real or not. My sense is what is “real” or “true” is always up for debate (hence reverting to rejecting this debate for personal validation) and what matters ultimately is the effect of the belief. Experiencing the unity of the cosmos fixes a belief whose effect transforms consciousness, the result of which is, among other things, the post, this thread, and any psychophysical response that results. Though perhaps Matt has also been possessed by Ahrimanic forces sent down by Michael to live in a mushroom until ingested to unite and possess his body consciousness to lay the groundwork for a dark religion of the mushroom 🍄😈
What if it could be shown that this is the dual tactoid appearance of Matt Segall under another guise? As such, he enters his own alter-ego as the biggest enemy of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy? Go figure. As an academic, he feels the draw from one way or the other. In my experience in studying the work of Rudolf Steiner for the last 37 years, it proves itself without psychedelics. They can only help launch the initiative. Then, you are left alone to make the resolve on your own. This is being experienced today. And, I am thankful for it.
So, I am glad that Fairytales has the levity of his fiction. Yet, the continuation of the dream life can only draw false conclusions. We are experiencing it as we speak. For example, calling Nietzsche a loser at 24 years of age. Come on? What is going here, Matt? Is this what you were inviting in this discussion on meta-modern-Christianity, or has something else magically taken place? Yes, your own alter-ego, which is a doppelganger, which you have snatched because you are so adroit. Your father was a secular agnostic, while my father was a secular atheist. He experienced World War II.
I didn’t call Nietzsche a loser, I said there may be other reasons to be hired as a professor at a young age without having to be a prodigy, and political economy is as good a reason as any. Why can dreams only draw false conclusions? They are nature -- lumen naturae-- but perhaps you think nature is false. Perhaps 37 years of investment in spiritual science makes it difficult to recognize its own falsity. Maybe this, maybe that. As you say, you’re not interested in anything beyond what is personally valid. In which case, let whatever you think feel and intuit be valid for you, however false it may seem to anyone else. Steiner didn’t let it stop him. Perhaps that is the real meta perspective.
Well, you'll have to point out something, or ask another question. As a prompt, for example, did you know that Nietzsche became an author possessed by ahriman over the last ten years, until his collapse in 1889. No wonder he could say crazy things. Michael's victory in the War in Heaven in 1879 served to cast down to Earth these Spirits of Darkness, who took him over because he possessed a weak etheric body. Thus, the Nietzsche scheme.
I did not know that! Did you actively Will the cosmic thoughts to achieve consciousness of those facts? (How do you know?) I am also curious what “crazy things” you are referring to that could have only been said and written through ahrimanic possession? Genealogy of morals, Twilight, Antichrist... they seem continuous with Birth of Tragedy no? A philological analysis of Christian morality and his solution of revaluing values?
I am also curious how you see the difference between a personally validated spiritual science and schizophrenia, in terms of the epistemological claims one or another might make?
I am referring to the seemingly "crazy things" that you yourself said earlier concerning the Nietzsche conspiracy scheme. I had not heard that one, but it epitomizes what Steiner alleges as Nietzsche's crossing over to the dark side progressively more and more in the 1880's, and becoming an "ahrimanic author". Remember, Nietzsche at sixteen was studying Schopenhauer's, "World as Will and Idea", and seeing pessimism in his future. Then, a sudden influx of inspiration caused him to produce, "The Birth of Tragedy", which shows a close relationship to the Greek age. Thus, in 1869, he was recommended for the chair of the Department of Philology, University of Basel, and approved solely on the authority of the book. The secret is that he had a former life of some significance in Greece, as a younger contemporary of Socrates.
I am most interested in your last question, which seems to be trying to draw out something that might be of particular value to you. You said:
"I am also curious how you see the difference between a personally validated spiritual science and schizophrenia, in terms of the epistemological claims one or another might make?"
Now, this makes me ponder whether Matt's experience when he was 19 and having ingested the psilocybin of the sacred mushroom, which led to his Christ experience, is real or not. We know that experimental mysticism has its place in revealing certain remembrances and useful prompts on the spiritual path, but it can only be repeated for value-added support for a short time. So, I wonder what you might think about that, and if Steiner might have fallen into some kind of condition of insanity. I found him completely sane to the end of his life.
My experience would indicate both a Christ as a supersensible being from the Sun, who Zarathustra first received as Ahura Mazdao, and then later as the so-called 'Solomon' Jesus child, according to the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, describes a completely different Jesus child. Yet, these two gospels are entirely objective about the fact that two different children are being described. One is born in Bethlehem, and lives in Bethlehem, and the other is born in Bethlehem, but lives in Nazareth. This is made absolutely clear in the Gospel of Luke. We shouldn't entertain scholarly assumptions and clever possibilities when the facts of Spiritual Science have made it all very clear.
As well, if proofs of an Etheric Christ experience exists, and can be explained, such as Matt's psilocybin dose of experimental mysticism, as well as other more naturally verified means of experiencing Christ in the Etheric Body, like my own, this only helps to substantiate further the findings of Anthroposophical Christology. Otherwise, you are going to get the usual plethora of debatable and argumentative rabbit-hole excursions.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Mine is the opposite -- how to reconcile that? Gospel of Luke according to Steiner says the spirit of one Jesus boy, post death, migrates to the other no? Hard to tell if you are describing steiners version or the *actual* gospels... seems steiner’s scheme is meant to reconcile otherwise irreconcilable statements.
When you refer to “Facts of spiritual science” are you referring to the things steiner believed and reported or something else? I don’t assume the premise Steiner was clairvoyant or anything beyond intuitive, and even so got many things wrong, including his Jesus theory, which while i also intuit an eastern influence, my sense is it looks a bit different.
Proofs may exist, but that doesn’t mean they are necessary, or even worthwhile, and can’t be cut away with Occam’s razor. I don’t think it substantiates anthroposophy, but rather might make for a more convoluted theory with a number of theoretical contortions and backflips that require extreme specialization to be conversant in a system that may be altogether unnecessary (convenient for anthroposophical societies and teachers collecting dues and tuitions maybe).
Regarding scholarly assumption, clever possibilities, and debatable arguments/“rabbit holes”, it would seem to be the nature to philosophy to seek truth through dialectics where logic and evidence is mobilized to make a persuasive case. Certainly different from a faith-based position or arguments based on authority. Personally I don’t find steiner’s method viable, but with the varieties of religious experience, whatever works may be good enough, though id be curious the cash value so to speak
I am only interested in personal validity and verification. I care nothing about proving anything. I know that cosmic thoughts are real, and the will is the active measure in achieving consciousness. The rest is simply contributing to the cause. It has all been written out. The truth lives in it.
Good lecture here about how Hegel wrestled through to Cosmic Thinking. He was a proponent of Realism in thinking, which treats "thoughts as things", with real Archetypal Ideas behind them. Thus, "thinking into things" with real motivation became his objective. On this path, he came to discover that the Will that Schopenhauer made so enigmatic, also becomes conscious. Thus, he put Ahriman under his feet, which is the Michael objective. And, he left Schopenhauer bereft of any kind of reconciliation, and destined only to appeal to the psychologists, Freud and Jung, and the irrational impulses of will left to remain unconscious in their psychoanalytic rationales.
Thanks for this. I am a Teilhard Catholic, a fellow traveler with Steiner (especially of what he says about the blood shed at the crucifixion) and a dedicated reader of the very great tome of Christian esoteric thought, the anonymous Meditations on the Tarot (with a preface by von Balthasar and a postscripte by Bede Griffiths!!!!!) which I commend to one and all, Tarot or no Tarot. But really, thanks for this. Hard to do.
This particular lecture by Steiner had a monumental impact on my own understanding of the relation between the Buddha and Christ impulses (in the Earthly stream of evolution about 2000 years ago). To be clear, and as you also pointed out, this is not to set up some binary opposition between the two impulses. We're going through an evolutionary process and each new impulse is supposed to bring a new level of unfolding for the Spirit that works and expresses through humanity.
The Buddha impulse was meant to help raise the Earthly self from the web of entanglement with bodily life, to differentiate that from the higher spiritual being that purifies and perfects itself, practically becoming master over the flesh. This is not negated by the Christ impulse but is led further. The higher spiritual being enters and fertilizes the Earthly spectrum and with this begins its gradual redemption through human spiritual activity. This can be achieved only through the power of Love, which is not something that we can make out of our separate efforts at self-perfection but flows from the Source of Being. It is synonymous with the idea of 'no being left behind'.
***
"Buddha's doctrine of suffering had a mighty and vivid effect on the hearts of human beings. Countless people learned the great truth of being liberated from suffering through the extinction of the thirst for being, and they also learned how to strive outward from their earthly incarnations. Truly, the highest peak of human evolution is placed before our souls by such an endeavor.
Let us now view the period that comprises twelve centuries — six hundred years each before and after the birth of Christ. We need to stress that the Mystery of Golgotha took place in the middle of that period. From the age of Buddha, six hundred years before Golgotha, let us now call special attention only to what the Buddha felt at the sight of a corpse and what he taught in relation to this. Now that we have done this, let us immediately consider the time six hundred years after the Mystery of Golgotha, when countless souls and eyes turned to the cross on which a corpse was hanging. It is from this corpse that the impulses emanated that spiritualized life and signaled the glad tidings that death can be conquered by life. That, then, is the exact opposite of what Buddha felt when he saw a dead body.
Buddha saw in a corpse an indication of the insignificance and the futility of life. By contrast, the human beings six hundred years after the Event of Golgotha looked up to the corpse on the cross in a spirit of devout fervor. It was to them a sign of life, and their souls came to be imbued with the certainty that existence is not suffering, but that it carries over beyond death into a state of bliss. The crucified cross of the Christ Jesus six hundred years after the Event of Golgotha came to be a memorial symbol of life, of the resurrection of life, and of the victory over death and all suffering; six hundred years before the Mystery of Golgotha a corpse was the memorial symbol for the fact that human beings are subjected to misery and suffering because their thirst for being causes them to enter the physical world. Never has there been a more momentous reversal in the entire evolution of the human race.
If the human being's entry into the physical world had been considered as suffering six hundred years before the Event of Golgotha, how does the soul perceive the great truth of the misery of life after this event? How is this former truth perceived by people who look up to the cross of Golgotha with a high degree of understanding? Is birth suffering, as Buddha had said? Those who look up to the cross of Golgotha with a knowledgeable soul and who feel united with it will say to themselves: “This birth leads a human being into a world that had the opportunity to invest the Christ with its own elements.” They were glad to enter this earth on which Christ had walked. And through the connection with Christ, the soul had gained the strength to find its way up to the spiritual worlds, as well as the knowledge that birth is not suffering; birth is rather the gate through which one must pass to find the Savior — the Savior who has wrapped Himself into the same earthly materials that constitute the human physical sheath.
Is sickness suffering? Those who understood the Impulse of Golgotha in the true sense said: “No, it is not!” Even though mankind today cannot yet understand what the true spiritual life is that streams into them with Christ, people in the future will learn to understand it. They will know that a person whose innermost being is pervaded by the power of Christ, that an individual who allows himself or herself to become imbued with the Christ-Impulse will be able to overcome all illness with the help of the strong and healthy powers that he or she develops from within. This is so because Christ is the great healer of mankind. His power comprises everything that emanates from a spiritual well and is really able to develop the strong, healing power that can conquer illness. No, illness is not suffering, but rather an opportunity to overcome an impediment or a handicap by the development of the Christ-Force within us.
In the same way we must gain a clear understanding about the difficulties of old age. The weaker our limbs become, the greater the opportunity for us to grow in spirit and to master our infirmity through the power of Christ within us. Old age is not suffering because with every day we grow further into the spiritual world. And neither is death suffering because it is conquered in the resurrection. Death has been conquered through the Event of Golgotha.
Moreover, can we say that being separated from what we love constitutes suffering? No! The souls that imbue themselves with the Christ-Force know that love can forge indestructible spiritual bonds beyond all material hindrances. And there is nothing in life between birth and death and between death and rebirth to which we cannot spiritually find the way through the Christ-Impulse. If we imbue ourselves with the Christ-Impulse, it is unthinkable that we could possibly be separated from what we love in the long run. The Christ brings us together with what we love.
By the same token, “to be united with what we do not love” cannot be suffering because the Christ-Impulse teaches us that once we have accepted it into our souls, we must love everything in its own measure. The Christ-Impulse shows us the way, and when we have found this way, “to be united with what we do not love” can never cause suffering for then there will no longer be anything that we do not embrace lovingly. And “not to attain what one desires” can no longer be suffering either if one embraces Christ, for the human sensibilities, feelings, and desires are purified and ennobled by the Christ-Impulse in such a way that human beings desire only what they are meant to receive. They no longer suffer from the lack of things, for if they are meant to do without something or someone, such lack is for their ennoblement; and the Christ-Power gives them the strength to perceive it as a purification. When this happens, the feeling of lacking things no longer evokes suffering.
So what is the Event of Golgotha? It is the gradual abolition of the teaching by the great Buddha that life is suffering. No other event has had a greater impact on the evolution and the nature of life in this world than the Event of Golgotha, and that is why we can understand that it will continue to work for mankind and have tremendous positive consequences for humanity in the future." (GA 109, L VIII)
Thank you for sharing this. It makes me feel the importance of recognizing the difference between the Christic and Ahrimanic impulses. There are powerful forces at present deceiving people into the belief that death and suffering can be overcome technologically. That path is a trap.
We don’t overcome death by the attempt to preserve and remain in this physical body forever.
I have been reviewing Tomberg's Meditations on the Tarot, and this passage fits so nicely I had to share it. The Tree of Life, of course, is a symbol for the etheric life forces which humanity partook in before the Fall.
"But does not the Bible say that the approach to the Tree of Life is
defended and that “at the east of the garden of Eden God placed the
Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to
the Tree of Life” (Genesis iii, 24)? Yes, it is defended, but the defence is not
absolute and general; it is specific. Read what the Bible says here: “Then the
LORD God said: Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the Tree of Life,
and eat, and live for ever…” (Genesis iii, 22).
Now, it is a matter here of defence against putting forth the hand and taking from the Tree of Life, and it is this and only this that the flaming sword at the garden of Eden prevents.
“Putting forth the hand and taking”—this is the motif, the method and the
ideal of science. It is the will-to-power underlying the scientific attitude
which is prevented by the flaming sword of the Guardian of Eden from
repeating the act committed with respect to the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. But the motif, method and ideal of Hermeticism is contrary to that of science. The will-to-serve underlies the fundamental Hermetic attitude.
Instead of putting forward the hand to take, the human being opens his mind,
his heart and his will to receive that which will be graciously bestowed upon
him. The inspiration, illumination and intuition that he seeks are not so much
conquests accomplished by his will; they are rather gifts from above,
preceded by the efforts of the human will endeavouring to become worthy."
(MoT, Letter III)
Jesus teaches us we must be ready to hate our family to follow him and that child abusers should drown themselves - all the way to the lowest millstone. So yeah. Buddha, a rich kid, taught the tribes of humanity with the lowest testosterone level to remain passive. It’s still working. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 and elsewhere we learn Christ became Sophia. Sophia is fucking pissed. That’s why Shi called the Marshall and Maui fires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MrRSCNZdAs&t=4s
Steiner addressed similar spiritual realities in his book, called Christ and Buddha, which may well be a compilation of lectures.
Here is my take on "Christ as Evolutionary Power", and bearing much more than a teaching, like the Buddha's Eightfold Path. In other words, Christ as the Second Adam, known as Adam Kadmon to the Rhineland Mystics. The renewal of the fine Physical Phantom Body through Christ.
https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritlogic/p/christ-as-an-evolutionary-being-and?r=2kbdzg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Always enjoy Matt reading/hearing what you have to say.
One thing you say here is not clear to me. If “'God' is more an emergent construct that humanity is collectively creating, rather than a pre-existing Being that created humans," then how can you also say that "the divine always remains in excess of human attempts to understand or control it"?
Are these two mutually contradictory positions both true specifically because of coincidentia oppositorum??
If I recall correctly, I was saying that the "emergent social construct" theory of God is what metamodern thinkers seem to be suggesting. I do not reject that view, but I think it is partial. In addition to being a being we participate in and suffer with, God is also a primordial personality, an eternal life through and by whom we ourselves are born and to whom we perpetually return.
How to resolve this dipolarity in the divine imagination? I am not sure there is a logical solution to this problem. In fact, I don't believe it to be properly a "problem" at all. The coincidentia oppositorum is (to repeat a cliche but I think not unimportant line) a mystery to be experienced and not a problem to be solved.
Thanks, Matt, for your gentle reminder pointing to the moon.
I reread the article to find what I had gotten wrong and indeed found the exact point that confused me between what you were quoting from Brendan and/or John and what were your own ideas.
What you say here in your response is a clear iteration in your own words of the Immanent and the Transcendent, yet I still have a bit of difficulty with it.
I spent most of a lifetime submerged in the studies of a fundamental orthodox religious tradition and the only way I was able to extricate myself from it was by completely renouncing any iteration of a Personal Being. Despite that, there is still an emotional attachment that arises at times, but in general I am only able to relate to "God" as Being Itself, as the Ground of Being, the Life of Life, which inherently "seeks" to "share" Itself with something outside Itself that will be conscious of It, spontaneously giving forth of Its Goodness, Beauty, and Love so that those conscious beings will see them, acknowledge them, embody them, and enhance them, and in these ways partake of Its "God-ness."
So returning to this article, in speaking about your very personal and beautiful sacred experience, you seem to describe it in different ways.
At first you say about it that, "I feel most comfortable now referring to as the 'Christ archetype,'” which itself is ambiguous, since what the archetype meant to Jung himself is ambiguous: is it entirely a psychic event/dynamic or is there some "objective" reality to it outside of the individual human psyche?
And then, three lines later you write, "I certainly did not relate to this being as a projection of my psyche at the time," where you seem to explicitly refer to It now as "this Being," i.e., in Its own right outside of your personal psyche, yet at the same time imply that only "at that time" you did not relate to it as a projection but that now you do?
And then returning to your response, "In addition to being a being we participate in and suffer with, God is also a primordial personality, an eternal life" - in both halves of this sentence you seem to be saying that God is "a Being," "a Personality," in other words, you see the Transcendent also as an actual "Being," and even Personal, and not just Being Itself? Let's put aside the idea that the Immanent and the Transcendent are One and the Same, or is that precisely your point?
I have not yet watched your initial response to Brendan and John in the youtube video, "Metamodern Christianity? Or Christ as Cosmogram," but I will, and I apologize if you have more clearly discussed these issues there or elsewhere.
These are all good questions, Josh. I probably can't answer them sufficiently. I can just say that I turn to Jung's psychological language mostly because I don't want to give off the impression that I am incapable of considering the possibility that this was an intra-psychic event. It did not feel that way at the time, but with some critical distance, if I am honest with myself I cannot rule out the psychological interpretation. Regardless, it was a transformative experience. It has had real effects on my sense of self and what life is about. So in a pragmatic sense, it doesn't matter! But theologically speaking, I do find it necessary to speak of the Christ Being and to relate to a divine personality. I take seriously the idea of the divine ground of existence as a Trinity or Tri-Unity, meaning that God is both Being as such as well as the Relationship that Being has to itself. Not sure I can say it any more cleary than that.
Thank you very much for that Matt.
But maybe I can still nudge to say it a bit clearer.
You seem to be saying that the Ground of Being is a/the Trinity, and that this Ground of Being is both God AS Being Itself and as Relationship to Itself, both of which are still in the realm of the Transcendent, and when you speak about the "Christ Being" you seem to be speaking about something outside of that Trinity, i.e., outside of conventional Christianity and more akin with Steiner/Theosophy, where the Christ is seen as the Headmaster of a hierarchy of spiritual masters that include the Buddha and others - and perhaps might be conceived as "extensions" and "expressions" of the Godhead in that they have completely devoted and surrendered their lives and very selves to It/Him/Her/That What Is, in other words, the Immanent (which we all are but don't realize it)? Is that what you mean?
Do you have any articles or videos at your fingertips you can refer me to that are devoted to discussing these points, conceptually, practically, and in the context of Whitehead?
I am in no position to question the original formulation of the Trinity as Father (or transcendent Ground of Being), Son (or immanent expression of that Ground), and Spirit (mediating relator linking the two in the Love that builds and sustains human communities).
Christ was a shellycoat trolling his DoZen disciples - the students. He is the gentle Naga Shesha and the (mostly) harmless rainbow snake of Aboriginal Australians
Does anybody have the books from the 72 apostles? You know - the actual missionaries Christ didn’t talk down to?
I love the part where Simon is renamed Peter then gets a lesson on shitty soil … it’s got rocks in it!
These parables are parabolic and over your head.
The cohen of cone though light comes had jokes. Yeshua is Joshua - and to Josh is to jest.
Welcome to the infinite jest…
Sept 11 means 72
Gospel of Thomas has 114 logia
Quaran has 114 Surrah
Surrah 72 is the Djinn…
Thee Easter eggs are here…
If these speakers had a deeper understanding of their own bodies as described by Steiner they wouldn’t need to make the language split between explaining and training.
A masterly explication of Chrst, spiritual experience and the interior landscape in coherent conceptual terms is provided in the extensive research accounts of Yeshayahu Ben Aharon.
Given a deep and detailed enough experience of one’s body it is possible to speak of spirituality in seemingly mechanical sounding terms, and conversely to integrate oneself as spirit into the daily solid world.
🙏
It is wonderful to hear this kind of reasoning. Our own bodies are the gateway to spirit perception and cognition, but we have to apply methodology. For example, Etheric Regeneration comes first because the human etheric body has contracted to the point where it is now indentured into the physical body. As such, it needs to re-expand to its former predominately large configuration. All the bodies are undergoing the influence of Adam Kadmon. Check this out:
https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritlogic/p/the-concept-function-and-method-of?r=2kbdzg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritlogic/p/the-concept-function-and-method-of-5b9?r=2kbdzg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
As you talk about “Jesus as the initial vessel for the Christ being to incarnate, but, crucially, not as the unique vessel” it seems there is something qualitatively different about Jesus vs. Buddha that represents a hierarchy of religion that puts Christianity “above” Buddhism, modern, metamodern, or otherwise. This seems to be captured by Steiner, whose scheme in Gospel of Luke suggests a pre existent entity beyond what “merely” has “emerged” over time contra to these points. Would love to hear how you reconcile your own position on Christ/Jesus (and Zarathustra for that matter) with both Steiner and Nietzsche’s elaborated schemes sometime. Looking forward to checking out your video response!
What was Nietzsche's elaborated scheme? I know about Steiner's two Jesus boys, as described intensively in Luke, which is likely too detailed to be a scheme. Also, this lecture from GA 109:
From Buddha to Christ
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA109/English/AP1986/19090531p01.html
Steiner talks about two Jesus boys, though the wider theory includes what’s going on “behind the scenes” of those physical expressions. Regarding Nietzsche, he discusses Christianity as a subterranean conspiracy and slave revolt meant to subsume mystery religions in genealogy of morals which he traces philogically. (“Where several gather in my name, I am there” translates differently if we see Jesus as coming from yeshua, Joshua, etc meaning “god saves”. The Jesus story is how Jesus lived up to his name) In both cases the “traditional” historicity is challenged but so too is the meaning. Matt’s Al-chemical entheogenic interpretation would represent another, so I’m wondering with all the interpretations how are they reconciled. Brendan’s idea seems to be a cherry-picking from a “metamodern” perspective the best of all worlds, but as a former biblical scholar/evangelist I assume the historicity is taken for granted, while it’s meaning is revisioned for this post-post-modern era.
Reconciling irreconcilable gospels gets us two Jesus theories if we take steiner’s intuition as truth, while this history is ignored, or one gospel’s historicity is elevated over another if we pick and choose, but this ignores the thesis that Christianity and Jesus’s historicity may be fabricated for a greater meaning to overturn imperial values. In which case, who is to say that the original fabricators were not “metamodern” and Christianity in general was a metamodern project itself? You can read gnosticism as a postmodern queering and inversion of traditional values and synthesis of thesis and antithesis. Gospel of John and apocryphon of John is thought by scholars like April deconick to precede gospels and of Samaritan origin, where Christianity was developed as a response against a cult of personality by an “egoic” magician at the time by developing a selfless miracle worker as an ideal then historicized... there’s no end to the theories out there (some say it’s an astrotheology) but the point is the periodization of pre, modern, post, meta fails as there are multiple centers of gravity in all places in all ages, and what metamodernism is doing is no different -- maybe it is the eternal recurrence..?
I think the college was in some financial struggles so they were able to hire a 24 year old for very cheap. Don’t know about a “dark side” unless you’re just talking about atheism, but as a writer integrating the Dionysian and trying to come to terms with the beauty of suffering while philosophizing with a hammer and suffering from loneliness...there’s no reason for it to be supernatural. Speculations he had a degenerative brain disease also account for his move toward breakdown/death; i suppose if steiner prefers spiritual language to scientific there may be an equivalence of symbols/meaning there.
Regarding entheogens, my sense is the physiological effect has a psychological correlate of “letting things in” that comes off as a unitive experience of transcendence, interconnection etc. which would be framed by the cultural framework available, in this case Wattsian Christianity/modern secular Buddhism. It’s a common effect cross culturally; again, whether spiritual or scientific language, the experience may be the same, it’s primarily a phenomenon with a psychophysical effect represented in whatever language available to communicate an epochal experience. Not sure what you mean by “value-added support for a short time” or what it means to be real or not. My sense is what is “real” or “true” is always up for debate (hence reverting to rejecting this debate for personal validation) and what matters ultimately is the effect of the belief. Experiencing the unity of the cosmos fixes a belief whose effect transforms consciousness, the result of which is, among other things, the post, this thread, and any psychophysical response that results. Though perhaps Matt has also been possessed by Ahrimanic forces sent down by Michael to live in a mushroom until ingested to unite and possess his body consciousness to lay the groundwork for a dark religion of the mushroom 🍄😈
What if it could be shown that this is the dual tactoid appearance of Matt Segall under another guise? As such, he enters his own alter-ego as the biggest enemy of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy? Go figure. As an academic, he feels the draw from one way or the other. In my experience in studying the work of Rudolf Steiner for the last 37 years, it proves itself without psychedelics. They can only help launch the initiative. Then, you are left alone to make the resolve on your own. This is being experienced today. And, I am thankful for it.
So, I am glad that Fairytales has the levity of his fiction. Yet, the continuation of the dream life can only draw false conclusions. We are experiencing it as we speak. For example, calling Nietzsche a loser at 24 years of age. Come on? What is going here, Matt? Is this what you were inviting in this discussion on meta-modern-Christianity, or has something else magically taken place? Yes, your own alter-ego, which is a doppelganger, which you have snatched because you are so adroit. Your father was a secular agnostic, while my father was a secular atheist. He experienced World War II.
I didn’t call Nietzsche a loser, I said there may be other reasons to be hired as a professor at a young age without having to be a prodigy, and political economy is as good a reason as any. Why can dreams only draw false conclusions? They are nature -- lumen naturae-- but perhaps you think nature is false. Perhaps 37 years of investment in spiritual science makes it difficult to recognize its own falsity. Maybe this, maybe that. As you say, you’re not interested in anything beyond what is personally valid. In which case, let whatever you think feel and intuit be valid for you, however false it may seem to anyone else. Steiner didn’t let it stop him. Perhaps that is the real meta perspective.
Cool! Look forward to learning more about it :)
Well, you'll have to point out something, or ask another question. As a prompt, for example, did you know that Nietzsche became an author possessed by ahriman over the last ten years, until his collapse in 1889. No wonder he could say crazy things. Michael's victory in the War in Heaven in 1879 served to cast down to Earth these Spirits of Darkness, who took him over because he possessed a weak etheric body. Thus, the Nietzsche scheme.
I did not know that! Did you actively Will the cosmic thoughts to achieve consciousness of those facts? (How do you know?) I am also curious what “crazy things” you are referring to that could have only been said and written through ahrimanic possession? Genealogy of morals, Twilight, Antichrist... they seem continuous with Birth of Tragedy no? A philological analysis of Christian morality and his solution of revaluing values?
I am also curious how you see the difference between a personally validated spiritual science and schizophrenia, in terms of the epistemological claims one or another might make?
I am referring to the seemingly "crazy things" that you yourself said earlier concerning the Nietzsche conspiracy scheme. I had not heard that one, but it epitomizes what Steiner alleges as Nietzsche's crossing over to the dark side progressively more and more in the 1880's, and becoming an "ahrimanic author". Remember, Nietzsche at sixteen was studying Schopenhauer's, "World as Will and Idea", and seeing pessimism in his future. Then, a sudden influx of inspiration caused him to produce, "The Birth of Tragedy", which shows a close relationship to the Greek age. Thus, in 1869, he was recommended for the chair of the Department of Philology, University of Basel, and approved solely on the authority of the book. The secret is that he had a former life of some significance in Greece, as a younger contemporary of Socrates.
I am most interested in your last question, which seems to be trying to draw out something that might be of particular value to you. You said:
"I am also curious how you see the difference between a personally validated spiritual science and schizophrenia, in terms of the epistemological claims one or another might make?"
Now, this makes me ponder whether Matt's experience when he was 19 and having ingested the psilocybin of the sacred mushroom, which led to his Christ experience, is real or not. We know that experimental mysticism has its place in revealing certain remembrances and useful prompts on the spiritual path, but it can only be repeated for value-added support for a short time. So, I wonder what you might think about that, and if Steiner might have fallen into some kind of condition of insanity. I found him completely sane to the end of his life.
My experience would indicate both a Christ as a supersensible being from the Sun, who Zarathustra first received as Ahura Mazdao, and then later as the so-called 'Solomon' Jesus child, according to the Gospel of Matthew. The Gospel of Luke, on the other hand, describes a completely different Jesus child. Yet, these two gospels are entirely objective about the fact that two different children are being described. One is born in Bethlehem, and lives in Bethlehem, and the other is born in Bethlehem, but lives in Nazareth. This is made absolutely clear in the Gospel of Luke. We shouldn't entertain scholarly assumptions and clever possibilities when the facts of Spiritual Science have made it all very clear.
As well, if proofs of an Etheric Christ experience exists, and can be explained, such as Matt's psilocybin dose of experimental mysticism, as well as other more naturally verified means of experiencing Christ in the Etheric Body, like my own, this only helps to substantiate further the findings of Anthroposophical Christology. Otherwise, you are going to get the usual plethora of debatable and argumentative rabbit-hole excursions.
https://open.substack.com/pub/spiritlogic/p/the-reappearance-of-the-etheric-christ?r=2kbdzg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thanks for sharing your experience! Mine is the opposite -- how to reconcile that? Gospel of Luke according to Steiner says the spirit of one Jesus boy, post death, migrates to the other no? Hard to tell if you are describing steiners version or the *actual* gospels... seems steiner’s scheme is meant to reconcile otherwise irreconcilable statements.
When you refer to “Facts of spiritual science” are you referring to the things steiner believed and reported or something else? I don’t assume the premise Steiner was clairvoyant or anything beyond intuitive, and even so got many things wrong, including his Jesus theory, which while i also intuit an eastern influence, my sense is it looks a bit different.
Proofs may exist, but that doesn’t mean they are necessary, or even worthwhile, and can’t be cut away with Occam’s razor. I don’t think it substantiates anthroposophy, but rather might make for a more convoluted theory with a number of theoretical contortions and backflips that require extreme specialization to be conversant in a system that may be altogether unnecessary (convenient for anthroposophical societies and teachers collecting dues and tuitions maybe).
Regarding scholarly assumption, clever possibilities, and debatable arguments/“rabbit holes”, it would seem to be the nature to philosophy to seek truth through dialectics where logic and evidence is mobilized to make a persuasive case. Certainly different from a faith-based position or arguments based on authority. Personally I don’t find steiner’s method viable, but with the varieties of religious experience, whatever works may be good enough, though id be curious the cash value so to speak
I am only interested in personal validity and verification. I care nothing about proving anything. I know that cosmic thoughts are real, and the will is the active measure in achieving consciousness. The rest is simply contributing to the cause. It has all been written out. The truth lives in it.
Good lecture here about how Hegel wrestled through to Cosmic Thinking. He was a proponent of Realism in thinking, which treats "thoughts as things", with real Archetypal Ideas behind them. Thus, "thinking into things" with real motivation became his objective. On this path, he came to discover that the Will that Schopenhauer made so enigmatic, also becomes conscious. Thus, he put Ahriman under his feet, which is the Michael objective. And, he left Schopenhauer bereft of any kind of reconciliation, and destined only to appeal to the psychologists, Freud and Jung, and the irrational impulses of will left to remain unconscious in their psychoanalytic rationales.
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA202/English/Singles/19201204p01.html