Steiner

[dr.j]

Hello everyone, I've been lurking here a while but this is my first post. Recently I ran across Rudolph Steiner's book's/lectures and I became very interested in him. When I found BOTH I was very happy to see a section for discussion of his view's as not to many people are familiar with him. While reading through his autobiography Steiner mention's(chapter 3) meeting a simple man who gathered medicinal plant's and herb's. A man of ancient knowledge an "initiate". Steiner remark's of his affection for him and the ancient wisdom and then never mentions him again that I could find.
Well then I tried to search through various works for more evidence of this man or the use of entheogen's and although I did not find anymore references to this gentlemen I believe he does mention the use of entheogen's in a vague way.
I am interested to know what some of you think about this. Did Steiner use entheogen's to form his view's or were they the result of meditation alone? Are there any specific books or lectures where he mentions entheogen's?
Daniel thanks for the forum it's great to have a place to discuss things.
Thanks

[dr.j]

Daniel I put this in the wrong forum.DUH. I meant to put it in Esoteric Philosophy. Sorry. Thanks

[daniel]

I don't think that Steiner used entheogens. I think that he was naturally at a level of consciousness that most people can only hope to reach through psychedelics. Amazingly, he was able to function simultaneously in normal rational consciousness and in these other states.

I would be interested in finding out what was revealed about Steiner's past lives. One would imagine he knew exactly what they had been, but I have never found the info. I think Thomas Aquinas (?) might have been one, I heard somewhere.

[dr.j]

Daniel, I agree that he did not need them. Anyone that has read his work can tell that he is extremely gifted. The amount of books he has written, all of his lectures(6000 I believe) amazing. What I was wondering is was he aware of entheogen's and their effect's? Did he ever experience them? Would he approve of their use to reach these states until they could be achieved without them? Did he believe that a person could reach these higher worlds through meditation alone? I would think he would prescibe it.

[imported_saoirse]

[Daniel – forgive me for jumping in, but I have recently been getting really interested in Steiner's work, thanks to your making me aware of his significance, and I had just this afternoon been pondering the very topic raised by Dr. J.]

Dr. J - I have only started to scratch the surface of Steiner’s thought, so I am not sure if he directly touches on the topic of etheogens anywhere in his voluminous body of work. However, right now I am immersed in "How To Know Higher Worlds” , and I get the distinct impression that Steiner would have been pretty wary of the us of [or at least the exclusive us of] etheogens to achieve what he termed “spiritual cognition” or true insight into the higher realms. Perhaps he would have viewed them as useful in giving us a glimpse of the fact that there are other realities than material existence, so as to encourage us on the path of initiation, but, if so, I feel he would have counseled that we carefully partake of these teachers with utmost reverece and with experienced teachers and structured guidance. [Check out Daniel's posts on the Santo Daime thread]. Personally, had it not been for my [albeit limited and juvenile] exposure to etheogens I would probably not have found my way Steiner and other spiritual teachings that have begun to profoundly influence me, so I can definitely see their value, if used appropriately.

From what I have learned so far in "How To Know Higher Worlds” I feel Steiner would have urged extreme caution in using etheogens to objectively experience these realms. This is because he believes that one must prepare oneself diligently and patiently in order to follow the path to higher worlds, so as to avoid the danger of being sidetracked into the swamps of subjectivity and delusion. He believes that, somewhat like our physical muscles and organs, the spiritual faculties [“soul organs”] must be patiently developed by exercise and discipline so that they can accurately perceive these higher worlds. Here are some relevant quotes from "How To Know Higher Worlds” from my reading so far [I’m only about half way through]:

[1994 “Classics In Anthroposophy” edition]

P.15: “...There is a universal law among initiates that the knowledge due a seeker cannot be withheld. But there is another universal law that esoteric knowledge may not be imparted to anyone not qualified to receive it”

P.16: “...Before one can receive the highest treasures of the spirit, one must develop definite inner qualities to a specific high degree. We begin with a fundamental mood of soul. spiritual researchers call this basic attitude the path of reverence, of devotion to truth and knowledge”

P.91: “...There are of course other approaches that lead more quickly to the same goal. But such faster ways have nothing to do with the path presented here because they have certain human consequences that are considered undesirable to anyone experienced in esoteric practices...if we do not wish to entrust ourselves to dark powers whose nature and origin we do not know, we shall do well to leave such approaches alone” [oblique reference to etheogens? Or, more likely I suspect, to magic via the “left handed” path?]

P.106: “Certainly, truth and the higher life dwell within the human soul where each of us can, and must, find them. But they lie deep within, and can only be brought up from the depths after the obstacles have been cleared away”

P.116: [re practices for developing the spiritual organs, here the 5th chakra]
“...There are certain other, and easier, methods for developing the sixteen petal lotus flower. True spiritual science rejects such methods because they lead to the destruction of our physical health and to moral corruption” [again, what are these other methods?]

P.123: [talking of practices to be followed for developing ones soul organism]
“...To attempt an occult training without following theses guidelines would be to enter the higher worlds with defective mental eyes. Instead of cognizing the truth, one would be subject only to deceptions and illusions”

Hope this helps.

Peace, Kevin

[dr.j]

Saoirse, thanks for the reply. I must say that I think one would have to experience a entheogen a some point to realise the state they are trying to reach through meditation. Very few people would even understand. You could meditate for years and not know but take a entheogen(from a spiritual perspective) and know instantly.

As you said yourself "had it not been for my exposure to entheogen's I would probaly not have found my way to Steiner and other spiritual teaching's" my feeling exactly. That is what I was wondering. When Steiner as a youth(18yrs old) met this medicinal gatherer I believe he taught him of their properties. If you check out "The Story of My Life" at http://www.elib.com/Steiner//Books/ Chapter 3 I think you will come to the same conclusion.

Thanks again

[daniel]

Saoirse,

Thanks for those quotes. I have to say it again: Steiner is wonderful, so calm and lucid and accurate.

i think that Steiner would have recognized the necessity of entheogenic experiences if he lived today - but exactly as you say, he would have proposed caution and a deeper level of engagement and understanding before "crossing the threshold." After all, the goal of his life was to find a way to reconnect Western psyche and spirit, and these substances are the most potent and surefire method.

The one thing I find lacking a bit in Steiner (and this is because he is a product of his time) is a deeper meditation on the feminine side of God, which manifests through "The Mother" and more specifically "Mother Nature." One reason people are suspicious of psychdelics is because of this material, substantive base - that these compounds manifest through mushrooms, vines, cactii. For hardcore Western rationalists, they therefore dismiss them as "chemicals" or false in some way. I would say that they fear being humbled by an encounter with the (feminine) mind of Gaia. If Steiner lived now, his perspective on the Gaian mind would have evolved as well.

Another aspect of entheogens is that they are "Luciferic" - and Steiner did say we needed a reinfusion of Lucifer to counteract the heavy weight of Ahriman (technology, materialism) that is pressing us down at this point in time

[gone]

Drj: “I must say that I think one would have to experience a entheogen a some point to realise the state they are trying to reach through meditation.”

Daniel: “i think that Steiner would have recognized the necessity of entheogenic experiences if he lived today.”

I don’t believe entheogens are *necessary* on this journey. I believe them to be useful for some people who might not otherwise have been inclined to focus in a particular direction. I believe them to be useful as a sacrament. I also understand that people who are pretty tuned in acknowledge that the (particularly DMT) experience is an eye-opener. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that (for want of better categories) altered and non-ordinary states of consciousness (Knowledge of Higher Worlds, if you want) is in reach to many people purely via their own heart, mind and soul.

This kind of ties in to the Judaism and Entheogens thread. There is a temptation to start from the point that entheogens are The Secret which needs to be re/discovered at the root of all spiritual experience, a Secret which has been actively suppressed by History, but this ‘aint necessarily so all the time. While I believe entheogens are both significant and fascinating I think they are just part of the story. While Mckenna’s thesis in Food of the Gods is plausible I don’t think the appropriate place for entheogens is the very Being of the Human Story (I think he suggests somewhere that we evolved on the savannah because we had better hunting vision from small does of shrooms?). I’m not suggesting an all or nothing argument, just a little in between.

[imported_saoirse]

Daniel and Dr. J,

I agree with your views re the utility and perhaps even necessity of etheogens for opening up to other realms. The corollary, however, is that there is a shadow side to their use – given their immense power and potential for good, I think they also contain the potential to open us up to entities that can lead us astray and use us for their own devious ends. Hence I am starting to really believe that caution and reverence are of the utmost importance. I have dreamed about tripping only 5 times, when I was 19-23 yrs old and totally naïve, unprepared and unschooled. However, since reading BOTH in September of 2002 I have been very eager to once again have such dreams, and have been avidly reading of the experience of others and [somewhat impatiently] awaiting the right circumstances. Those circumstances have not yet presented themselves, but, especially after discovering Steiner, I have definitely become more patient.

J – the reference to the old mystic herbalist in “The Story of My Life” could very well point to the fact that Steiner had experience with etheogens, but I am puzzled as to why he does not address the subject explicitly in his vast pantheon of writing, especially given the breadth of his knowledge about the esoteric. He mentions in “...Higher Worlds” that there are some aspects of initiation that are not to be spoken of. Maybe for him etheogens fell into this category of secret knowledge?

Daniel – As I mentioned earlier, I’ve only begun to scratch the surface of Steiner’s writings - what was his perspective on the idea of the Gaian mind? What is your opinion on how his ideas illuminate the Noosphere concept? Also, if you get a chance, can you give a quick synopsis of Steiner's theory on the Luciferic versus the Ahrimanic influence? I read an article called "The Advent of Ahriman" by a Robert S. Mason, but it still isn't that clear to me. Btw, I remember you once mentioning that you were interested in thoughts about the congruence and distinctions between Gurdjieff’s and Steiner’s thought. I got sidetracked half way through “In Search of The Miraculous” last year, so I don’t really have a good grasp of Gurdjieff. However, the other day I came across a website that addresses this issue and which may interest you. www.steinergurdjieff.net (http://www.steinergurdjieff.net)

Gelfer – I agree that etheogens are not necessary in every case, but I think that at this point in time they may be necessary, in that, given the crises the planet faces, they are a vital catalyst in the struggle to wake humanity from the materialistic coma we are in, before we destroy the planet.

Great article on Steiner:
http://www.lapismagazine.org/whitesteiner.html

[ January 26, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: saoirse ]

[gone]

saoirse: “I have dreamed about tripping only 5 times, when I was 19-23 yrs old… I have been very eager to once again have such dreams, and have been avidly reading of the experience of others and [somewhat impatiently] awaiting the right circumstances.”

I know this feeling, brother.

“I agree that etheogens are not necessary in every case, but I think that at this point in time they may be necessary, in that, given the crises the planet faces, they are a vital catalyst in the struggle to wake humanity from the materialistic coma we are in, before we destroy the planet.”

Sure this is fine, but I feel too many people are jumping in and still missing the point. I’ve said several times on this board that I feel there is an esoterica and mental adventure fetish at play within our counter/culture and I think entheogen use all too frequently falls in to this category. I get a little suspicious of the psy trance events, groovy adventures and quick fix scenarios – it ends up like just another party. But hey, I guess there are many paths…

[daniel]

For those interested in Steiner, definitely read his Philosophy of Freedom, a book of philosophy that convincingly refutes dualism (of Kant, etc). It "sets the table" for all of his later work. I just answered an email interview question about Steiner, and talked of Ahriman & Lucifer and Philosophy of Freedom. Here is the Q and some of my A:

One can tell from your work that you have high regard for the turn of the
century spiritualist Rudolph Steiner. For those not familiar with his
teachings, why the interest?

Rudolf Steiner was much more than a "spiritualist," first of all. He was an extraordinary philosopher and visionary who offers a vast cosmology and reading of the Akashic Record. I think that Steiner could be as important for the Twenty First Century as Nietzsche was for the Twentieth. He is a kind of prophet or advance man for a new type of thinking and a new type of doing.
There are several aspects of Steiner that make him so crucial, in my opinion. I first became involved with his thought because his articulation of the "subtle realms" completely matched and helped to explicate my own experiences and visions. For instance, he splits the Christian "Devil" into two sets of forces or beings that work on humanity all the time – the "Luciferic" forces (Lucifer means, literally, ‘light bringer’) that seek to pull us up and away into brilliance, imagination, genius, but also hubris and arrogance and pride; and the "Ahrimanic" forces that try to pull us down into minerality, materiality, materialist technology, and death. This age of materialism represents the ascendance of Ahriman, the evil earth spirit. Psychedelics are very Luciferic – and Steiner believed that humans needed a renewed impulse from Lucifer to balance out the negating forces of Ahriman. In fact, he called his magazine Lucifer Gnosis.
Another important aspect of Steiner, for me, is the philosophical underpinnings he provides for thinking about cognition, and about human freedom. An amazing early book of his is Philosophy of Freedom, where he effectively refutes Kantian dualism. He notes that you can’t really make a final distinction between our thoughts about things and the things themselves. Thinking, for him, is a part of reality – as much a part of reality as any physical object. He points out that we have no right to feel that a plant’s ability to produce leaves, roots, and blossoms is somehow more real than the thoughts we can have about that plant. It may be that our thoughts about the plant are as much a property of that plant as its blossoms, stems, etcetera. If thinking is recognized as a part of the world in this way, then we can also see that thought is neither subjective or objective. Thinking is different than all other world processes, because it is the only activity that we experience from the inside – when we use our thinking to investigate anything else, we are looking at something outside of out thought. But when we investigate our thinking, we have to use our thinking to do so. One beautiful aspect of thoughts is that they can be shared – once I have a thought, and write it down or express it, anybody else can also experience that thought from their own perspective. Hence, you can neither call thinking subjective or objective. This perspective is incredibly liberating. If thinking is a part of reality, and it is neither subjective or objective, then, for Steiner, there can be no limits to cognition (unlike with Kant, who theorized there were things in themselves that we could not approach – but Steiner points out there is no basis for making this hypothesis). Thinking becomes the effort of reconciling "percepts" – those entities and things we perceive as outside of ourselves – and "concepts" – the elements of our cognition – and there can be no conceivable endpoint to this work of reconciliation. It is an infinite task – or an infinite play.

[daniel]

One thing I would like to point out is that Steiner anticipates Rupert Sheldrake's idea that the laws of nature evolve by habit, through morphogenetic fields. For Steiner, everything is in a continual state of evolution. Also, because intelligence and cognition are not personal attributes, but aspects of reality, there is for Steiner no limit to cognition - thinking is an act of reconciling, not an effort to master or control "the squamous facts" exceeding "the squeemous mind." (Wallace Stevens)

I find this perspective to be an advance over the ideas of Carl Jung, who put the "collective unconscious" in the static position of being an eternal and uncognizable truth. For instance Jung writes:

"Consciousness, no matter how extensive it may be, must always remain the smaller circle within the greater circle of the unconscious, an island surrounded by the sea; and, like the sea itself, the unconscious yields an an endless and self-replenishing abundance of living creatures, a wealth beyond our fathoming."

I believe Jung is wrong to say that consciousness "must always remain" anything at all.

I am studying a fantastic book by a contemporary Steiner-ite, titled "Becoming Aware of the Logos." It states:

" "There is no such thing as cognition" is an impossible statement, which negates itself, as do its variants, "There is things which we cannot cognize" or, generally, "This or that is not cognizable. At the very moment we say that of something we are about to cognize it. The moment we stand at the boundary, the boundary has been crossed. "

And also:

"Whoever can speak is not of this world. This world exists, for and through the speaker, through the Logos. Nothing is un-sayable; it is a Logos-world."

[imported_saoirse]

Thanks Daniel - much to ponder, and another book to add to the ever growing list. coincidentally, someone just recommended me another book by Kuhlwind called "Working with Anthroposophy". Another recommendation was Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances". Also, are you familiar with a book by Florin Lowndes called "Enlivening the Chakra of The Hear: The Fundamental Spiritual Exercises of Rudolf Steiner?" If so, do you think it is worth studying [i just picked it up] ?

Gelfer - point well taken

[gone]

I’ve formalised a few ideas around the Esoterica Fetish, should anyone be interested:

http://www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle1949.html