Sergei Prokofieff, Judith von Halle and the Representative of Humanity

After my recent blog posting on Coronavirus and the Indwelling Divinity of the Human Being, I received an email from an anthroposophist, someone for whom I have considerable respect:

“I read your blog with interest (…).  Thank you, it was stimulating food for thought. However, I’m afraid I don’t set great store by Judith von Halle’s sensational claims. I appreciate that you have obviously found them helpful, and I don’t want to undermine that, but from past experience and from Sergei Prokofieff’s analysis of her seership, I am very cautious. I think the pandemic is more about preparing humanity for the incarnation of Ahriman, the hallmarks are very much of ahrimanic nature. That’s not to say that other beings don’t also have an effect, but does Judith von Halle offer any substantiation of her claims? It’s a very strong statement that individual karma is being thwarted, for instance. When seers dislike being questioned, I become suspicious. She is welcome to offer opinions, but when they are dressed up as facts, I am wary. But it’s good that you write blogs and get people to think more widely.”

Another correspondent wrote to tell me how she attends a regular study group and after reading the blog post, “last week I mentioned Judith Von Halle and was jumped on by each of the others! Sometimes I feel that many people wouldn’t recognise Christ if he walked through their front door!!! “ 

What these messages show me is that there are many anthroposophists who revere the late Sergei Prokofieff (16 January 1954 – 26 July 2014), who regard him as a star in the anthroposophical firmament and a worthy successor to Rudolf Steiner. They have listened to his criticisms of Judith von Halle and have downplayed her significance accordingly. I don’t share this view but I realise that there are many people who won’t agree with me; if serious anthroposophists such as Peter Selg hold Prokofieff in high regard, then who am I to say that they are wrong?  I would, nevertheless, like to explain my views on both Prokofieff and JvH.

Sergei O. Prokofieff

Only once did I see Prokofieff in the flesh, and that was when he gave a lecture at Rudolf Steiner House in London. His buttoned-up appearance reminded me of Virginia Woolf’s jokey description of the repressed and reserved T.S Eliot, as “wearing his four-piece suit.” My doubts increased as he was speaking, because he seemed to me to be distorting Steiner’s teachings and drawing from them quite unjustified conclusions. Several other people with whom I spoke afterwards had similar reservations.

Later on, as I acquired copies of some of his books and began to read what he had written, my doubts increased further. I have now given almost all of these books away to Prokofieff enthusiasts, as I did not find them helpful.

Since it was clear to me that Prokofieff was introducing a Luciferic distortion of Steiner’s teachings, I became intrigued as to why he was regarded so highly by many anthroposophists, culminating in 2001 with his being invited to join the Vorstand (Executive Group) at the global centre for anthroposophy at the Goetheanum in Dornach, Switzerland.

I then came across a very important critique of Prokofieff’s work. This is Sergei O. Prokofieff: Myth and Reality by the late Irina Gordienko. This book crystallised for me all the reservations I had felt about Prokofieff’s work. I won’t say any more about it here, because an excellent review of the book has been provided by Kim Graae Munch on his website and I would urge anyone who is interested to read it:

In his memorial address for Prokofieff given on 29 July 2014, Peter Selg described him as “this most inwardly faithful pupil of Rudolf Steiner and protector of his new revelation of Christ.” It is abundantly clear from Prokofieff’s writings and actions that he idolised Rudolf Steiner and that he wanted to be just like his eminent teacher. Like Steiner, Prokofieff was a prolific writer and lecturer dealing with profound esoteric matters. But I take leave to doubt whether Prokofieff was a high initiate in the same mould as Steiner himself.

In his remarks at the memorial gathering, Selg clearly did not feel it appropriate to make any reference to the controversies surrounding Prokofieff’s interpretations of Steiner’s teachings, nor his attacks on Judith von Halle. He did manage, however, to imply that Prokofieff was not always an easy colleague, recalling that: “In 2001 he was finally called to Dornach to join the Executive Council at the Goetheanum. Looking back on his life in personal conversations, he expressed repeatedly that he should have been called to the Executive Council by 1994 at the very latest so he could work intensely in Dornach for the ‘payment of the debt owed’ to Rudolf Steiner and for the culmination.” (The ‘culmination’ refers to Steiner’s expectation that anthroposophy would be transformed in such a way that it would enter significantly into the global scene of the 21st century as a world-changing creative power.)

Prokofieff also was “increasingly troubled by the relationship to Rudolf Steiner within the Anthroposophical Society and in Dornach, and he published a book concerning this relationship in 2006. Selg adds that Prokofieff also “felt himself to be increasingly isolated. He knew and accepted that an experience of ‘cosmic loneliness’ was part of modern initiation, but he often had to ask himself where his colleagues in the battle for the culmination were to be found. It pained him that his relationship to Rudolf Steiner—and the reasons he insisted on its significance—were often misunderstood; its inner spiritual dimension was not seen and what he taught and authentically lived remained uncomprehended.” Shortly before his death, Prokofieff told Selg “that he had things to tell the spiritual world and Rudolf Steiner, especially about the conduct of anthroposophy on the earth.” 

Clearly, everyone but Prokofieff was out-of-step. No-one can doubt Prokofieff’s devotion to Steiner and anthroposophy and his single-minded pursuit of what he felt was a sacrificial path of martyrdom. But I can’t help wondering what Rudolf Steiner will have said to his disciple when they met in the spiritual world after Prokofieff’s death.

So why am I resurrecting this fairly ancient history? It is because Prokofieff’s attacks on Judith von Halle are still influencing many anthroposophists, such as my correspondent cited above. Anyone who is new to these controversies can find out more by following this link and this to items appearing in Southern Cross Review in 2013:

Judith von Halle

I would like to say something now about my own feelings concerning Judith von Halle. Up until fairly recently, I had stayed away from the controversies surrounding her and the attacks mounted on her by Prokofieff and others such as T.H. Meyer and Mieke Mossmuller. Then I read a book called The Representative of Humanity – Between Lucifer and Ahriman by Judith von Halle and the late John Wilkes, about the unfinished wooden sculpture by Rudolf Steiner and Edith Maryon, which is today exhibited at the Goetheanum.

As I read this book, I was seized by an absolute certainty of knowing that Judith von Halle in her previous life had been Edith Maryon. How can one explain these things? I just knew.

This book is a sacred text. In the chapters, written alternately by John Wilkes and Judith von Halle, one is given not only the history of the first Goetheanum as a mystery temple and the central place in it of the wooden model, but also a beautifully clear and simple exposition of what it is to be a human being and an outline of the evolutionary journey on which we are all embarked. If you are looking for a concise and clear explanation of anthroposophy, I don’t think you can do better than to read this book. The photos and illustrations of the first Goetheanum and the artwork inside it are very moving and make one realise what a unique treasure was lost when the arsonist did his work on New Year’s Eve 1922.

It is an extraordinary thing that, just a few days earlier, on 26th December 1922, Rudolf Steiner gave to Edith Maryon a mantric verse that would seem to be a kind of preparation to deal with the shock of what would occur on the last day of the year:

The 9.5 metre high Representative of Humanity wooden model at the Goetheanum.

When human beings discovered the way the world

Dispersed endlessly in atoms

They accepted an understanding of the death of nature:

They should now strive to find in spirit what will overcome

The dead remains, and they will direct their understanding

To world becoming.

By giving Edith Maryon this verse, Steiner was showing to her that in the artistic realm one should not cling to the material aspect, because if one had done the work with the right attitude, one would have created something that is imperishable at the angelic level, a lasting spiritual work of art that will then have eternal existence.

John Wilkes was the founder of the Foundation for Water at Emerson College in the UK, where he did much of the mathematical research that led to the creation of flow forms for revitalising water. But he also was instrumental in the saving and restoration of the wax, plasticine and clay models that had been prepared by Steiner and Maryon for the Representative of Humanity, which had been thrown out (some were even wantonly destroyed, including a bust of Rudolf Steiner) when Edith Maryon’s studio was being cleared out in the 1950s. A little while ago I spoke with John Wilkes’ widow, Alfhild, who, although being understandably reluctant to discuss such a sensitive subject, confirmed that my intuition about Judith von Halle’s previous life was also shared by JvH herself. Interestingly, Alfhild also suggested that JvH, in some of her spiritual research, did not always get things invariably correct, which is a theme that Prokofieff, Meyer et al might agree with.

It is, nevertheless, for her spiritual research that Judith von Halle should be celebrated today. She is able to do work that only a very few anthroposophists are capable of doing, ie genuine spiritual scientific research. I know of only a few such people doing distinguished work in their own fields, for example Susan Raven (nature spirits), Ralf Roessner (bees, the light root) and Iain Trousdell (John Wilkes’ successor at the Foundation for Water). There must be others that I’m unaware of, but they are all precious and we should cherish them.

Von Halle herself has said this about her work:

“I am often criticised—it is the main criticism—that my lectures and books only contain the description of the perceptions, of unreflected-upon visions. But that is not the case. The work of investigating the spiritual world, that is my real activity, and it was also the case before the stigmatisation. Together with the stigmata really came experience of the events in the life of Christ and its historical circumstances, but perceptions of concrete historical situations from other times have also been possible for me since then, such as from the time of the Templars or events from other times and their circumstances. That was an amazing experience. However, what was important was that based on these historical events it was possible for me to spiritually investigate, that is to find out by means of spiritual science why just these historical events happened and their esoteric meaning in the overall cosmic plan. And it should be clear to every anthroposophist that such things cannot be found out through mere perception, but only by working for knowledge of them. And that is the kind of work, namely spiritual research, which I also did previously. It is very important that this be understood, because the same error in judgment of my spiritual activity is repeated again and again in public, at least by those people who judge without having been correctly informed about my work by reading my books. Therefore in every introduction to my [Christological] books I write about this – but it is unfortunately often ignored.”

Asked about how she does her spiritual research, JvH said this (and also gave a clue about herself which I followed up): “An indication of what happens in this respect on a higher plane can be found in Rudolf Steiner’s Class lessons for the members of the Free University for Spiritual Science, especially what he says at the beginning of the 11th lesson”.

This is what Rudolf Steiner said in Dornach on 2nd May 1924, at the beginning of the 11th Lesson:

“My dear Friends! You were probably all deeply affected this morning by the news that Miss Maryon has departed from the physical plane, even though this was an event long expected, coming as it has after a very grave illness lasting for over a year.” (Edith Maryon died from tuberculosis.)

“Tomorrow, when all the members of the Anthroposophical Society are present, I shall tell you what I have to say about Miss Maryon’s departure from the physical plane. For today, let me just mention that the First Class has lost a truly devoted pupil, for Miss Maryon was foremost among those who, with devoted work and inner fervour, have been deeply attached to what it has been giving. Despite her severe illness, she not only participated in the esoteric work being developed here but also practised the exercises given, letting them work on her and living with them with exceptional inwardness.”

“In her case this was all founded on the fact that she was actually already an esoteric pupil when she came to us. She belonged to an esoteric school working in quite a different direction before she made the transition to the Anthroposophical Society, and she very rapidly made the complete transition from that esoteric school into Anthroposophy. For her the esoteric element was what really mattered; she lived very intensely within it during the years she was with us on the physical plane, and will now continue to do so, having departed from the physical plane, though most certainly not from Anthroposophy.”

(…) “My dear friends, in esoteric life the essential thing is that a person should at least see and contemplate the ways and means whereby real knowledge in spiritual things comes about. As to how far the one or other among us will progress in following these pathways – this, admittedly, will depend on his karma. It will depend on the conditions he brings with him from former lives on earth.”

Rudolf Steiner sculpting the figure of Christ for the Representative of Humanity group.

The karmic connections between Rudolf Steiner and Edith Maryon lay across many ages and intensified during their work together on the Representative of Humanity. During the winter of 1916, as recounted by Steiner in his funeral address for Edith Maryon, she had saved him from death or serious injury when he almost fell from the scaffolding in the high ceilinged studio built the previous year to accommodate the 9.5 metre high model of the sculpture: “It was fairly near the start of our sculptural activities at the Goetheanum in Dornach when I had to work in the outer studio, that is in the large front studio, up on the scaffolding next to the figure of Christ in our model. That was the moment when, because of a gap in the scaffolding, I ran the risk of falling off, and I would definitely have fallen with my whole body onto a post with a sharp point if Edith Maryon had not caught hold of me.”

For reason of these deep karmic connections between Steiner and Edith Maryon, I am inclined to think that in her current incarnation as Judith von Halle, the I of her being is in close touch with the great Christian initiate who was Rudolf Steiner. I therefore give high credence to her spiritual research and insights and less credence to the criticisms from people such as Prokofieff, Thomas Meyer and Mieke Mossmuller. I speak as I find, and I find their thoughts overly head-centred and intellectual. I wish they could find their way to the kind of heart-centred thinking towards which all anthroposophists should aspire. Like my second correspondent cited above: “Sometimes I feel that many people wouldn’t recognise Christ if he walked through their front door.”


Filed under Judith von Halle, Representative of Humanity, Sergei Prokofieff

184 responses to “Sergei Prokofieff, Judith von Halle and the Representative of Humanity

  1. Di Mumme

    Yes, I agree with your perspectives here. Her connection to the Christ being shines through her writings and experiences and there one is put in touch with the forces of love. There is such pride in the egoistic outpourings of many intellectuals which is off- putting even if it contains insights. For me, Prokofieff is in this category.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Nansi Finch

    Wow what a great example of an anthropoper you are not!

    I you read on your own website YOUR ‘Comments and Moderation Policy’ obviously written by yourself.

    …….Respect other people. To use a footballing analogy, please play the ball and not the person.

    And your opening spiel on the late Sergei Prokoffief was to poke fun at his attire. From here I read no more! That statement told me all of who you are in a moment. You are nothing but a child in adult clothing.

    God help the world with individuals like yourself having so much to say, if you knew anthroposophy you would know that there are twelve ways of viewing the world not only yours.


    • Steve Hale

      Yes, 12 world outlooks represent an important goal for human consumption. As well, we have variance in personality between people because of some eight planetary moods. In a recent post here on another essay it was shown how the combination of 12 world outlooks, which are psychological in nature, plus the planetary influences that inveigh on personality, we have an infinite number of combinations that make up the human condition today. I often feel the need to recommend reading this course of Rudolf Steiner because it begs: “Please understand me”.

      I know that people revere Sergei Prokofieff over many years, and some 25 books. Study groups exist to work on the findings of Sergei Prokofieff. I knew that Jeremy was taking a big risk in writing this post. Yet, your comment doesn’t even try to find a common ground. Personally, I see Prokofieff’s last book, “And the Earth Becomes a Sun”, written while he was dying, to be a seminal classic, which will one day be used by scholars of Rudolf Steiner as a kind of “fast track” into the intricacies of who Rudolf Steiner was. This is still the big Question.


    • Nansi

      Hi Jeremy, clearly I was working out of my ‘lower I’ and I apologise for any hurt I have inflicted upon you. I was alway taught that you don’t speak irreverently about the dead and your opening statement really touched a nerve in me. I am not in the position to make a comment on either individual as I would need to do much research to pass a fair comment.
      I would like to imagine that we are all climbing the same mountain, all at different levels and on different paths. From my understanding pulling our fellow man apart doesn’t assist in the future working of anthroposophy and no doubt I will be called to continue around the mountain on the same level for a while yet and that is ok, I will wear it.
      Regards nansi


      • Hi Nansi,
        Many thanks for your message and I completely appreciate your point of view. (My wife also criticised me for making fun of Prokofieff’s appearance.) What I was trying to do, in my clumsy way, was to express how my sense of doubt about SOP’s books and lectures developed, but this was not to denigrate those people who have found his work very meaningful.
        With best wishes,


        Liked by 1 person

  3. Javiera Cucurella

    Dear Jeremy,
    How do we work together then? how do we all find our way into the world from anthroposophy being true to our own individual nature and destiny but knowing that anthroposophy doesn’t belong to anyone in particular? How do we nurture respect for different streams within the anthroposophical movement, without having to part ways? is this what we have to offer both the spiritual world and our fellow human beings?
    What light does it share to anything really to know that JvH might be Edith Maryon? will not be more relevant who is she now? What she is doing now?

    Why there is no room for some people to feel closer to Prokofieff work in particular whereas others would do to JvH?

    I am new to this particular dispute, but not to this kind of arguments within the anthroposophical movement from where I am from, and it is sad, embarrassing and discouraging.

    I do hope that we do better in the future, which it is now!

    kind regards,


    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Javiera,
      I think that anthroposophists have been highly effective at disagreeing with one another since at least 1935! So is there a core set of beliefs (or working premises) that all of us can coalesce around? How about the concepts of Lucifer and Ahriman as polarities and Christ as the place of balance to which we should all return? Perhaps we could also all agree that the incarnation of Ahriman is imminent!
      Best wishes,

      Liked by 2 people

      • Javiera Cucurella

        Well then…lets do that!

        I hope we can carry on discussing but from the centre, and not from one of the poles, which only leaves room to either be in favour or against, don’t we have enough of that already? in the past but increasingly so in the present?

        I wish i could be able to feel in the future that we are brothers and sisters, as R Steiner often refer to members. I am working on that…

        As a kindergarten teacher from a third world country I know that things are going to get rough and dark for the Steiner Waldorf movement, much more than they are now, and we are going to need everybody’s support, physical, emotional and spiritual.

        With best wishes and hope,


        Liked by 1 person

        • Thank you, Javiera – yes, we are going to need one another more and more, as the Ahrimanic ratchet keeps tightening and restricting our capacity for doing the best for the children and people in our care. There are basic concepts that we can all agree on, even if we might find other things to disagree with amongst ourselves. Best wishes, Jeremy

          Liked by 1 person

      • Maverick

        Jeremy, I agree that the solution you mention is best – the Christ being the balance. The Cayce work in the west had/has the same dilemna, but we were always told “In union there is strength”. There is so much division occurring around the globe; for the sake of the work, there needs to be one unifying Ideal that can be returned to, like a guiding star, or the ship will be lost in the rough waters ahead.


      • Steve Hale

        Hi Jeremy,

        Your words here about 1935 are really good. What else could be said after such an event. Nothing has ever been the same since. You wrote:

        “I think that anthroposophists have been highly effective at disagreeing with one another since at least 1935! So is there a core set of beliefs (or working premises) that all of us can coalesce around? How about the concepts of Lucifer and Ahriman as polarities and Christ as the place of balance to which we should all return? Perhaps we could also all agree that the incarnation of Ahriman is imminent.”

        Maybe, ‘maybe’ Ahriman’s incarnation is still imminent and yet just look at what the 20th century has wrought in terms of two world wars, and Korea, the Vietnam War, and now, the War on Terror since 2003. If we are still waiting for Ahriman by now, then it only means that Sorath, the daddy, has already gotten his grips into the situation.

        What I find interesting is that Steiner delineated clearly the inceptions of Sorath as occurring in three increments: 666 – 1332- 1998. Yet, he only gave this parameter in 1924, ref. GA 346. Prior to this is when he spoke of the incarnation of Ahriman some three millennia after the incarnation of Lucifer in China, c. 3000 BC. So, you see how much he leaves this incarnation open. Why not Woodrow Wilson, who is the one that Steiner reviled for entering WWI in 1917, with his fourteen points? Why not FDR, with his ‘New Deal’ in 1933, and wherein he looked the other way while Hitler built his war machine with the help of Wall Street? And then, let’s not forget Harry Truman, who launched the two atom bombs on Japan in 1945. As the story goes, Japan was willing to surrender unconditionally, and yet
        the bombs were inflicted anyway. Then, there was President Eisenhower, who warned at the end of his two terms as potus, “beware the military-industrial complex”. Then JFK.

        So. I am interested to know where and who the Ahrimanic incarnation could be in our day and age. It may have already happened, yet Steiner didn’t talk about it until 1919. Yet, Wilson was potus until 1920.

        In 2003, George Bush declared the War on Terror against Iraq, which was a country in the middle east which had shown that they subscribed to inspections that they had no nuclear weapons. Yet, this became the premise for the War on Terror.

        Now, it is possible to do a comparison involving 1332 and 1998. These are the advocation points between the 2nd and 3rd incarnations of Sorath.

        In 1332, Sorath incarnated for the second time, and by this time had migrated from Asia over Africa into Europe. He was in France by this time, and had already successfully defeated the Templars. Just five years later, King Philip VI declared war on England, and the Hundred Years War began in 1337.

        In 1998, this same occurrence took place with Sorath’s third incarnation. This is where we all have a compass for discerning where we were then. In 2003, just five years later, George Bush declared the War on Terrorism against Iraq. This was the most unsuspecting country in the world thinking that it still held weapons of mass destruction.

        Now, here is the important part. Anthro’s all over the world are still waiting for the incarnation of ahriman, and maybe it did take place early in the 3rd millennium. Why not? What war is going on now that might last for a long time; maybe even a century?


        • Those of us who are inclined to do so can speculate all we like about the incarnation of Ahriman and whether or not it has already happened or is still to come. If the human vehicle for Ahriman was born around 1999, is there any reason why Ahriman should not be a “walk-in” for that vehicle in the coming years? After all, Christ was a walk-in for Jesus of Nazareth, when Jesus had reached the age of 30 years. But speculation of this kind by someone like me is not nearly so useful as the contribution of people such as Judith von Halle, who really can do the spiritual scientific research – which is one reason why I have focussed on her in this posting.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Steve Hale

            Who said anything about 1999 as the birth of the human who would be the carrier of Ahriman? Answer: You, Jeremy. Again, I say compare 1337 and 2003. What took place in 2003, which has plagued the world ever since the event of 9/11/01. George Bush, son of GHW Bush, who orchestrated the dismantling of the Soviet Union in 1991, with the large help of the traitor, Michael Gorbachev. The only person of significance in 1999 was Vladimir Putin, who Ton speaks of, and coming two years before 9/11/01. So, please try to see the signs of the times. Christ was a walk-in to Jesus of Nazareth, this is true. But to say the same for the anti-Christ is really pure speculation. Wondering where you’re going with this, since you are the one still thinking Ahriman has yet to incarnate. Why are we still waiting for Ahriman? Does that help anthro’s in some way? Maybe it is Sorath that we need to be concerned about by now.


            • Steve, I suspect that neither you nor I knows the answers to these questions. We can use our intellects and our reasoning power, as does for example Terry Boardman. We can observe phenomena (the signs of the times, as you call them) and comment on them and draw some conclusions. We can speculate, perhaps sometimes to good effect. But, as far as I’m aware, none of us is able to do the spiritual scientific research into the Ahrimanic incarnation that results in real knowing, which is why I was making the point about the value of someone like Judith von Halle.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Steve Hale

                Well, what did she say about it? Is it still yet to be determined by the research of Judith von Halle? That doesn’t seem very spiritual scientific. I certainly agree that Ahriman has incarnated in the general sense, and for a long time. Two thousand years ago, Christ knew that this “ruler of the world” had gained the power to make the turning of stones into bread the main objective of life. And, Christ also knew that He could do nothing to overcome it alone. Ahriman/Satan could not be beat on its own terms.

                I think that looking at the objective history of just the 20th century, and into the 21st, which has been briefly outlined here, with possible candidates for the Ahrimanic incarnation, is based on doing spiritual-scientific research. It is the trend of events since 1900, the advent of the new Age of Light, after Kali Yuga ended in 1899, that is important to assess. Thus, it is Sorath, as anti-Christ that has governed these last 120 years. Any number of qualified candidates could be Ahriman in the flesh. Woody Wilson, for example; he goes back to 666 AD itself. Very strong candidate. Eisenhower, who warned JFK: “Beware the Military-Industrial Complex”, just three days before JFK was sworn in as the 35th POTUS.

                Of course, these are powerful men in high office, and the physical incarnation of Ahriman could be someone who was born in 1999, and just 22 years old. Yet, if so, hasn’t the damage already been done, and aren’t we as a world culture already well on our way to demise? If so, then the imminent physical incarnation of Ahriman is merely icing on the cake.


                • tonmajoor

                  Initiations around the years -1, 666 and 1332 (cf. Sorat, CW 346) were described by Steiner (1916 and 1918) as ‘ahrimanic’: Taotl (CW 171), Arabism (CW 184) and Philip IV (CW 171).

                  A fourth initiation in 1998, related to Bolshevism, then would be the real ahrimanic incarnation as ‘a citizen in comfortable circumstances’ (GA0195/19191228).


                  • Steve Hale

                    Indeed, interesting to consider the “citizen in comfortable circumstances”. Also, we know that 1998 contains a hidden ‘666’, and 1999 the reverse, ‘999’. This is the wisdom factor that would strive to keep us from the abyss. Bolshevism was the design of the West, inflicted on the East.

                    “And what experiment is being made in the East of Europe today under the guidance of the West? (This guidance is not only evident through the fact that Lenin and Trotsky are the spiritual disciples of the West, but also through the fact that Lenin was dispatched into Russia in a sealed railway carriage by Dr. Helphand, the German official who accompanied him. So that what is termed Bolshevism, is an article transported into Russia by a German Administration and the German military command.) What are they trying to attain in the civilization of Eastern Europe? An attempt is being made to do away with everything human, with everything embodied in a human body as human, and to harness together Lucifer and Ahriman, with the civilization they represent. Were this to be realized in the East, then the Manufacturing Company of Lucifer and Ahriman would create a world excluding everything beneficial to the individual human being, and man himself would be dovetailed into this Luciferic-Ahrimanic civilization as part of a machine in the complete working of the machine. But the parts of a machine are lifeless and allow themselves to be fitted in, whereas human nature is inwardly alive, permeated by soul, permeated by spirit. It cannot fit into a merely Luciferic-Ahrimanic organization, but will perish in it. Only an understanding of Spiritual Science can grasp what is really taking place today in this materialistic world which has but the haziest notions of spirit. It is only the insight of Spiritual Science and its living earnestness which can explain what the fact implies that, during the last thirty to forty years, the essential nature of the German people would not turn back to that German spirituality pointed out in my essay, but that in this German world of culture, we have at last come to this, that men of authority have felt it to be the right thing to send to Russia (in a sealed railway carriage), through a man who stood in their service, the inaugurators of Lucifer and Ahriman. In our days, it will not do simply to look around and then go to sleep peacefully, in the presence of what is actually taking place in the depths of the spirit of the present time. We ought to feel that we must say: “We have forsaken and trodden under foot that which in the age of Schiller and of Goethe was created within the Spiritual life of Germany. And we have the task of beginning where they left off and of building on further.” No better New Year’s thought can enter our souls than the resolution to make this our starting point.”



  4. Maverick

    Thank you Jeremy for your closing words, hoping for more heart-centred thinking. You describe the issue I’ve had with Anthroposophy – too much emphasis on the head-centred and intellectual. Interestingly, the intellectual has mostly been sourced from the male species, or those being influenced by the male species – I wonder why that is? I did learn something of great importance from your post – that any work we value should be created at the imperishable, angelic level before it’s ever brought into the material plane of existence. Thank you for that thought. Now I’ll turn back and read the resources you include in your post.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Kyle J

    Thank you for your post.

    I hope it’s relevant to comment here on this topic. This is the troubling thing I find with some of Steiner’s lectures. They are full of contradictions. Or maybe, Anthroposophists, or whoever recorded the lectures (perhaps inaccurately), are not giving true accounts/interpretations of what Steiner actually said or meant. I’ll hold off on my criticism for now.

    In regards to this post (with all due respect), how could JvH be a reincarnation of Edith Maryon if it takes 1,000 years for a soul to spend in Devachan between incarnations? Not my words, those are Steiner’s (allegedly):

    “The ancients knew that with this movement of the Sun round the Zodiac something important was connected, for it meant that the Sun’s rays fell on the Earth under quite different conditions as time went on. And indeed the period of 2,160 years does signify a complete change in the conditions of life on Earth. And this is the length of time spent in Devachan between death and a new birth.” GA95


    “We must remember, however, that during this period a person is generally born twice, once as a man and once as a woman, so that on average the interval between two incarnations is in fact about 1,000 years.”

    ‘In fact about 1,000 years’ it is said. This matter is confusing. Where is the exception to this rule? And when there is an exception, what is the explanation? Perhaps reading Steiner’s words are meant to be read in a heart space way of thinking, which you mentioned… and perhaps details don’t matter and ‘facts’ are more subjective? I can kind of see this, because the ‘overly head-centred and intellectual’ way of thinking seems to be the very approach that defeats it’s initial aims. That overly head-centred and intellectual way of thinking by definition is in it’s nature, Ahrimanic, is it not? And these are some of the leading voices in Anthroposophy?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Kyle, your comments are very welcome here. Re the period between incarnations, I think that Steiner also indicated that people who have worked on themselves will reincarnate much more quickly. It is also fairly clear that in this present period leading up to the incarnation of Ahriman, the whole process has been speeded up considerably and people are returning across much shorter time periods even than in Steiner’s day.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Kyle J

        Thank you for the clarification, Jeremy. This has left me quite perplexed for some time, but the speeding up of events makes sense. Your mention of JvH as the reincarnation Edith Maryon also reminded of me of what Steiner said about the Maitreya, who he says incarnates every century:

        “The Bodhisattva of the 20th century will not rely upon any herald to announce him as the Maitreya Buddha, but upon the power of his own words; he will stand on his own feet in the world.” Ga130

        I’ve wondered many times who could that be. At any rate, thanks again for sharing your thoughts and work!


        • Steiner never contested Krishnamurti being the future Bodhisattva (World Teacher), but did question his messianic status.

          When Krishnamurti was 30 years of age, his younger brother died:
          “According to eyewitness accounts, the news “broke him completely.” but 12 days after Nitya’s death he was “immensely quiet, radiant, and free of all sentiment and emotion”; “there was not a shadow … to show what he had been through. … Over the next few years, Krishnamurti’s new vision and consciousness continued to develop. New concepts appeared in his talks, discussions, and correspondence, together with an evolving vocabulary that was progressively free of Theosophical terminology.” (wiki)


    • Upspince

      I can only express my views on Steiner’s work with regard to his orientations on Karma and my own reflections. These Steiner´s orientations on reincarnation are based on a set of experiences offered entirely by great spirits, both in good and in the aspect of evil. Average individuals hardly appear when observing him. It is what, first, I must clarify, according to my reflection. With my contribution I do not try to reflect who corresponds to which of the reincarnation of your example. Steiner refers only to particular cases of Initiates and souls spiritually active and ready to continue the Initiation. Plato’s soul, say, has “awakened” in certain cycles; This means that, for example, in the Middle Ages, Plato’s soul picks up old impulses on a certain reincarnation date, but that does not mean that Plato’s soul did not have intermediate reincarnations. Steiner just ignores them and continues. Thus, he only refers to reincarnations that, in pedagogical terms, illuminate the transmigration of certain Plato impulses discovered by Steiner. Thus Steiner proceeds with the reincarnations of various Initiates in many of his lectures. I repeat: this does not mean that the souls of the Initiates have not reappeared in unimportant intermediate incarnations. Quite simply, in the generality of his lectures, Steiner does not take them into account.

      Steiner exposes the rule about temporary returns as male or female. Then he avoids unrepresentative incarnations. In Initiates and also in people who are about to enter the Abyss due to their degeneration, this rule changes frequently. It must be accepted, with caution, that this too is a necessary generality. Exceptions exist, but the incarnations of the Initiates are not as sporadic in the Initiates as has been believed in Anthroposophy.

      The male and female bodies are a vivid experience for Initiates. In uninitiated souls, it is largely an experience out of evolutionary necessity and out of karma — in negative sense of the word.


      • Kyle J

        Thank you, Upspince, for helping me put more context to this phenomena. I suppose the more consciously aware one is -being the Initiate – in life after death, the processes taking place will be that much faster. On the other hand, an average person, they could very will spend quite a long time in a stage in Devachan. Of course, I can only imagine. For example, the analogy of the dream states, how the average person lives in the dream world in a rather confused way, it seems very likely that in life after death it could also take quite awhile for someone to realise where they are exactly and what they are doing. I will definitely take note of what you said while reading more of Steiner on this subject. It’s fascinating, I’ve much to learn!


        • Maverick

          Kyle J, responding to your comment about our confusing dream state. Here’s something my mind is toying with – it began, I think, when Kathy Finnegan reminded me that we’re “asleep” in our conscious state. Keep in mind, this may vary according to what plane of development we’re on, but I believe this means that the spiritual world wants to work with/through us, but in our conscious, sense-world activity, it can mostly work through our subconscious, to which most of us are “asleep” during waking hours. But in our dreams, when our astral and ego have gone to higher realms, the spirit world will impress certain things they need/want to bring to our attention, which is why it’s such a good practice to write down any dreams we remember. Here’s the thing I’ve been noticing though lately – a group I’m part of has just recently finished up a chapter on Meditation, and several of us noticed that, as we meditated more frequently, our dreams became almost non-existent, the ones we remembered at least. What I got from this was that, as we practiced deep meditation more, the spirit world was able to communicate to us what it needed to during those meditations, without relying so much on using our dreams. Of course, all of this is just thoughts in my mind, and I’m open to any insights or corrections that need to be made.


          • Steve Hale

            Hi Maverick,

            It sounds like you are in a very interesting group of spirit-seekers, and this reflection on the power of meditation experienced is a really important contribution to the discussion. You are a good writer. It is true what you say about how dreams are affected by what we do while we are awake. That’s the whole point. The gist of KOHW is this: We must do some kind of work during the waking hours of life that has nothing to do with it, but only becomes perceptible when we sleep at night. Meditation is one method, as well as exercising sense-free thinking on the topics of spiritual science, which is also meditative, but also an active concentration within the pure thought world. This is why it is more effective.

            Steiner describes in this lecture what occurs in sleep, and why dreams both conceal and reveal certain things that can make them a kind of chaotic melange of past and present. Because of this, we still remain asleep to a certain after waking up. This allows the fruit of lower Devachan to work in our waking day experience, and feel the world as beautiful. It is so important to see and feel beauty. Dreamless sleep brings moral pictures into the soul upon waking, and why we are also renewed every morning in the quest to live and do the good. Truth, also, is renewed every day as the sacrifice of thinking when we go to sleep. We cease to think while we slumber, but take it up again in the morning.

            So, Truth, Beauty, and Goodness is what sleeping is all about, and why we need to do something out of the ordinary while we are awake, which will carry over and grow.


            Liked by 1 person

          • Kyle J

            Maverick, your ending statement reminded me of a Novalis quote (actually a quote Steiner used in ‘Riddles of Philosophy’):
            “The spirit world is indeed already unlocked for us; it is always revealed. If we suddenly became as elastic as we should be, we should see ourselves in the midst of it.”
            The link Steve Hale posted on the Etherisation of the Blood is very relevant. After reading it, honestly, my mind has already shifted from the topic of dreams to the appearance of Christ as an Etheric Being. However, back to dreaming. I also had a similar experience as you did with the meditation. Just a few months ago, I was practicing vipassana at a Buddhist monastery for two weeks, and I also recall dreaming very little. It makes sense that while in meditation, the will is being exercised – something that we do in the dream state. A kind of compensation happens

            Liked by 1 person

            • Maverick

              Yes, if we develop a meditation practice, it gives the spiritual world a supplementary avenue with which to bring what they see as being important issues to our attention; happens if we’re listening for the still, small voice.

              I’ve been meaning to read that lecture that Steve gave the link for; sounds like I better move it up on the priority list. Thanks for the input Kyle.


              • Steve Hale

                Yes, it is the Will that needs to be awakened in this day and age of modern Initiation Science. The reason is because the Will is the least conscious member of our being. If you go back to the most ancient of mystery schools, it was the faculty of Thinking that was aroused into being while the common folk lived in their Sentient Soul. Now, today, as a result, the Intellectual Soul arises as a natural inheritance in the first 21 years of life, ( 7 + 7 + 7). So, we have this faculty as an inheritance out of the Mystery schools which help guide human evolution. Then, in relation to the Christ Event, the mysteries worked on the Feeling Soul, through the ancient Gnosis, which came forth in order to preserve the fact that Christ actually entered earth evolution at its midpoint. Manes, who was martyred to death on the site of the future Academy of Gondhishapur, is the focal point here, as the ancient gnosis was destroyed “root and branch” in order to protect certain vested interests.

                That is why modern gnosis is so important to take up today as the stimulus for Will development. It consists of Spiritual Science in its three aspects: Anthroposophy, Psychosophy, and Pneumatosophy, which are oriented to the three divisions of Conscious Life: Past, Present, and Future.


        • Upspince

          The Hindustani term to define the entrance to the Christian Hell is Avitchi (hell or abyss). ‘Atomic infernos of nature’ may be the words to endow the Hindustani term with a more Gnostic-anthroposophic meaning —if I may coin it that way.

          I was asserting, dear Kyle J, the crude fact, not simply abstractive-sentimental, but real, that, an ordinary soul, after certain cycles of existences, enters, for many centuries, Hell , the Abyss or Avitchi.


          • Steve Hale

            This is the very same kind of personage that Irina Gordienko warns of in her excoriation of SOP, ref. “Sergei O Prokofieff – Myth and Reality”. Please read the author’s preface :


            So, dear Kyle, please beware of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. The English is getting better every day. 🙂


            • Steve Hale

              Sorry, this is the better address:

              Click to access Irina%20foreword.pdf


            • Please check that link, Steve – it doesn’t lead to any text.


            • Upspince

              Yes, my language is not English, I have said it. If my strange English improves as the days go by, it must be that something, beyond the syntax, that I see linked to the goodwill of some members towards my comments, improves our communication.

              Within Spiritual Science there is a character who represents, in every hidden drama of the Western and Eastern Initiates, the opposite aspect of good will. People express it as ill will, and are not aware of it.

              The name of that character, who comes to be the sumum of ill will, is the Caiaphas of the canonical Gospel. Beyond historical speculation, we must look for Caiaphas (the esoteric symbol) in all those personalities who, without obvious or proven reasons, launch the little work of a brother so that the multitudes thirsty for destruction do not listen to him and, on the contrary, mistreat him. [Caiaphas, by another name, is one of the three bad friends of the Biblical Job, an Initiate; he too, under another ancient denomination, he is one of the three enemies of Osiris, the Egyptian Christ; he is one of Hiram Abiff’s three killers too].

              I am not an Initiate. But I want to clarify that I have seen the Initiates, I know that they exist and that the Caiphas, like that historical figure in the Gospel, also exist.

              The Caiaphas are close. It is necessary to discover the behavior of the Caiaphas reflected in various forms of gratuitous slander, in insinuations about the doubtful origin of uncomfortable statements. Caiaphas is eloquent, he knows how to introduce fanciful hypotheses and comparative analogies directly into the brain and careless hearts of his people. Our accuser, for example, has not provided any argumentative measure to my claims. He is only trying to force me to give my human name and, if this implies forcing a retraction in the content of what I assert, all the better. From now on, he is willing to raise all kinds of doubts among the members; he also draws attention to my unlikely relationship with two or three anthroposophic personalities, of whose spiritual value I will not give any account for this reason: They have no esoteric relevance to me.

              However I know what I say here about Hell. Beyond my poor translation skills, it is possible that, from so much using Google’s online translator, certain unconscious skills allow me to improve my expression over time, since my thoughts regarding the needs of some members here are they concentrate better as I become more involved in their consultations with the group. Sure, these connections won’t last forever. The inner Caiaphas of some may disappear as soon as they make communication impossible. In those cases I usually leave, when the crowd agrees with the outer Caiaphas that they already admire, joining it to their own.

              But before anyone tries to get us into a discussion of purely personal provenance, I suggest remembering the following. Spiritual science is not limited to the extraordinary legacy of Master Rudolf Steiner. (Does anyone here agree?)

              Outside of this virtual site, far from the Waldorf schools, quite far from the speculations of certain bloggers from the US and Europe, there are other spiritual impulses issuing calls to awakening and regeneration of the soul. I say this as a first warning, just to exhort the members not to allow their Caiphases to suggest things like what Steve Hale (person I don’t know) is promoting regarding “the skin” under which I am contributing here.

              Several ancient traditions teach us (within a spiritual science understood as the beneficial panacea for the development of the soul in any cultural latitude) that certain ancient and frightening creations of the human being integrated in the mechanical Evolution of Creation, can only disintegrate under the hordalies of Subatomic Nature, outwardly referred to in Western religious circles as Hell.

              Hell must also be understood as a state opposed to the heavens while we are alive within the planetary atmosphere, and is, just as the peripheries of the superior worlds are, integrated with the human passions that unfolds within the terrestrial atmosphere.

              What this has to do, according to Steve, with intellectually questionable aspects in the writings of Mr. Prokofiev or with the statements of Mrs. JvH I do not care. What’s more, what these people have brought to the books attracts me very little.

              It is enough with what has been said to separate what I have just written regarding Hell and to put distance with the “dangerous” relationship proposed launched by Steve on the criticisms of Irina Gordienko to Prokofiev and my comments. Irina is another personality who does not project something that anyone interested in genuinely spiritual work should take into account.


            • Kyle J

              Thank you for your links, Steve. I did read the material. Many great points brought up by Gordienko. The continued development of one’s cognitive faculty is paramount to really understand the basic concepts of Spiritual Science. It would be hard to fool someone for long who’s done enough investigation into these matters, and with the right mind and moral inclination. And I suppose that is the danger following a guru religiously, even Steiner himself, if one cannot practice what is essentially important for one’s own evolution. A Thai Buddhist monk once told me,”Not even the Buddha can help you. You have to learn to help yourself.”

              For our current time, it’s hard not to see how witnessing the Etheric Christ is of the utmost importance. If that is held in high priority, the issues of being on the ‘wrong side’ of evolution should not be of concern. The Lecture, The Etherisation of Blood, really hit home for me. About sixteen years ago, or so, I had some auto-immune reaction and had severe swelling in the joints of the knees. At the hospital, they stuck a needle underneath my knee cap and the pain was excruciating, and blood was dripping out. Forgive the graphic depiction, but, I ended unconscious. What happened to me then, I was beholding a scene that looked very much like Gustave Dore’s painting of the the Circle of Angels in Dantes Paradise. But more so was the feeling, something akin to an incredible feeling of pure love and comfort. This had all happened during a very stressful time of physical pain. Reading about the the etherisation of the blood, made me wonder about this experience. So, I cannot say it was any kind of witness to an Etheric Christ, but something of the heavenly sorts (for lack of a better term). My point in sharing this, is that what seemed like a short brief moment in life is enough validation that witnessing the Etheric Christ feels more a reality than a concept, heavenly beings surely are real and are working closely with us (thoughts are beings in the astral realm – for example), and part of our life’s work in the physical realm is to realise it consciously. I’m not sure of any other worthwhile intention to study spiritual science other than that. Even stated in KoHW, “for every step in knowledge, take two steps in morality.” (not a direct quote, but something of the sorts if my memory serves well). Coupled with the courage to proceed, I see it hard to go astray too easily.

              I personally haven’t read from any other than Steiner on Antrhoposophical issues except Boardman and the book by David B Black on the Computer and Ahriman. Nonetheless, I can still heed Gordienko’s warning!


              • Steve Hale

                Three steps in moral development for every step forward in knowledge.

                This is the rigor of it all that assures simultaneous work on both Knowledge and Being. The Gordienko book, for example with the author’s foreward, insists that a true investigator of the spiritual must reveal its methodology of investigation, and apparently Sergei Prokofieff never did this. Yet, has Judith von Halle revealed her method(s) for entering into the akashic records in order to receive her insights? You see, she has detractors, just as SOP did, and for reasons that are on the same line of comparison.

                Now, for example, Rudolf Steiner often spoke about how Hell is experienced after death. It occurs in the state of Kamaloca, for a period of time that can actually be measured as much shorter than some seem to think and try to influence others with. This is where I feel it important to say something on behalf of the doctrines of spiritual science, knowing full well that I will get the backlash. Same thing happened about three years ago here, with ‘Anonymous’. Same voice; same rationale.

                You and Maverick bring forth just what Life Spirit needs in achieving the Spirit Self for the 6th cultural epoch. The Parsifal Spirit working in today’s world; a rarity indeed.


            • Gordienko’s Foreword is “falling into an ironical tone” about Prokofieff, as she herself remarks. In contrast to her statements, Prokofieff’s scholarly books seem to be wholly “based, as one might have assumed in such a case, on a study of the communications of Rudolf Steiner”.


              • Steve Hale

                Yet, as well, one can see the influence of Bondarev in this whole engagement. Lochmann has admitted that Gordienko wrote the book in her own handwriting, some 300 pages. You can even buy it. She also wrote it down in Bondarev’s own personal library, which Lochmann has also admitted. So, who is the real author here in this excoriation of Sergei Prokofieff? Was she murdered, or just an accident?? People don’t realize how volatile these times are in sacrificing the innocent, and protecting the guilty. Bondy vs. Proky is a story still to be told. It got Bondy expelled from the GAS in 1998, just as Proky was beginning to shine his light toward the Vorstand. It has to make one wonder about this establishment known as the General Anthroposophical Society.

                Both Bondy and Proky would continue to write their tomes for several years, and one has to wonder: Is this the Russian Folk Soul working on behalf of spiritual science, as Steiner more than suggested for the future?


                • The anthroposophical Russian cult in Europe (Prokofieff, Bondarev, Gordienko) could be part of what Steiner called the “immense reverence … for that which one calls genius, a seeking for genius. This is what will come from the East.” (GA0167/19160404). This future genius cult is comparable with the reverence for the European mystics in the Middle Ages.


                  • Steve Hale

                    As well, in 1917, Steiner further characterizes what must come from the Russian Soul:

                    “What is so remarkable about the Russian character is that as it evolves something will emerge which is different from what has emerged in the rest of Europe where mysticism and intellectuality exist, as it were, apart. In Russia a mysticism will appear which is intellectual in character and an intellectuality which is based on mysticism. Thus it will be something quite new, intellectual mysticism, mystical intellectuality and, if I may put it so, quite equal to its task. This is something that is not understood at all. It is there nevertheless, though hidden within the chaos of Eastern Europe, and will emerge expressing the characteristics I have briefly indicated.” (GA0176/19171906).

                    Of course, Steiner is referring to certain Russians living in his own time who had launched an esoteric system of self development that forced them out of Russia due to the Bolshevik Revolution. They migrated to the west, and France and England. This is what Steiner is referring to. He had told the Russians in his private lectures to them that their cause for the future 6th cultural epoch might just come upon them sooner than they think. And, it did; long before Proky, Bondy, and Gordy!


          • For Steiner, Avitchi is connected with the eighth Sphere and the Asuras:

            “Beside these [seven spheres] there is an Eighth Sphere to which everything goes that cannot make any connection with this continuous evolution. This already forms itself as predisposition in the devachanic state. When a human being uses the life on earth only to amass what is of service to himself alone, only to experience an intensification of his own egotistical self, this leads in Devachan into the condition of Avitchi. A person who cannot escape from his own separateness goes into Avitchi. All these Avitchi men will eventually become inhabitants of the Eighth Sphere. The other human beings will be inhabitants of the continuing chain of evolution. It is from this concept that religions have formulated the doctrine of hell.” (GA0093a/19051009; for Hell see GA 121)

            Liked by 1 person

            • Upspince

              Timely contribution, Ton Majoor. They are words of the Master.

              A tiny clarification:

              I allowed myself to speak of Hell as it is, and not the concept from which any Western belief about it has been derived.

              Thanks you.


              • Steve Hale

                In the one substantive place where Rudolf Steiner spoke about the Eighth Sphere and its origin and purpose, he indicates what it means for the one who would seek to affiliate with the old and atavistic clairvoyance of the past, which can actually be attained today. You see, the Eighth Sphere is an actual entity that surrounds the earth, and is centered in the Moon.


                As such, anyone who would advocate the ancient clairvoyance today, and it can and has been done, falls victim to the Eighth Sphere. They live as a prisoner of this domain that surrounds the earth. Thus, they can speak of a kind of eternal Hell. The real goal today is to work toward modern exact clairvoyance, which is centered in cultivating the faculty of reasonable thinking to completion.


  6. tonmajoor

    I’d rather say, Prokofieff and von Halle are pupils of different esoteric schools or paths. A third school would be phenomenology:

    “The path leading to a knowledge of supersensible worlds that has been described more explicitly in this book may also be called the “direct path of knowledge.” Another exists beside it that we may designate as the “path of feeling.” etc.” GA013_c07

    “The path is absolutely safe upon which the communications of spiritual science lead us to sense-free thinking. There is, however, still another path that is safer and above all more exact, but it is also more difficult for many human beings. This path is presented in my books, A Theory of Knowledge Based on Goethe’s World Conception, and Philosophy of Freedom.” GA013_c05-03

    Liked by 1 person

    • Steve Hale

      Yes, this third school is the path that leads one into the pure thought world itself. By taking the concepts given by spiritual science into this world, which requires freeing the senses from their usual objects of attention, a process of rounding off the concepts begins, and understanding increases. This path is also known as the simultaneous work on Knowledge and Being, which is a head-to-heart process. Good article about it here.

      Click to access intermediatepath2.pdf


    • Positively framed, practising pure sense-perception would be part of the development of our consciousness soul. Cf. Steiner looking back on the beginning of his thirty sixth year:

      “An attentiveness not previously present to that which appeals to sense-perception now awakened in me. Details became important; I had the feeling that the sense-world had something to reveal which it alone could reveal. I came to think one’s ideal should be to learn to know this world solely through that which it has to say, without man’s interjecting himself into this by means of his thought, or by some other soul-content arising within him. … In observing the physical world one goes quite outside oneself …” (GA028_c22)

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Cathrine

    Thanks you Jeremy. Very well -written. I sometimes feel Rudolf Steiner “cringeing” at the goings on of some “Anthroposophists” here. For her part JvH has maintained dignity and grace int he face of the criticisms hurled at her.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Tom Hart-Shea

    I have never been able to make a relationship to Prokofiev’s work since he published his spiteful books on Tomberg.
    Whether one agrees with anything that Tomberg or von Halle have written is beside the point to me. They are both honourable people striving in a Christian way to present their understanding of the spiritual world to humanity.
    One must use one’s own moral intuition to help one discern what is useful to oneself in their work.
    There is no imprimatur in anthroposophy.
    Rudolf Steiner once described it as a hard and bitter path meaning one has to find the truth of it through refining one’s own nature, not through reading the ‘right’ books, or holding the ‘right’ opinions.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maverick

      Addressing Tom Hart-Shea’s comment, our individualities are the issue here. One follows Prokofieff, another JvH, another Steiner. I liken it to the pure Source Light shining through a prism. The One Light is broken up into several colors – because we’re all on different planes of development, one will follow the blue path, another the green, another the red, etc. But let’s not call our chosen color of path the “imprimatur”; rather, let’s recognize the One pure Light Source from which all the paths originate. Finding that is what we should all be seeking, and all paths should lead to it – unless we limit ourselves to our individual plane of development and desire to go no further. We have the freedom to choose stagnation, and even retardation. Personally, I’ll continue to seek Oneness, and the One true Source of Light. I’ve shed the Ego that would tell me that I’m a completely separate individual, and choose the Ego of the Christ who prayed for Oneness in His last prayer on Earth (John 17:21). I observe others on their chosen color of path, and am not bothered that they haven’t chosen the same color path as myself, and encourage all to discover the One Source. We should encourage each others on their path, and not condemn – there’s already enough opposition towards all who would seek the Source of Life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Steve Hale

        Actually, the last prayer of Christ was from the Cross on Golgotha, Luke 23:34: “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing”. Luke, the only gospel that renders this prayer, is considered the gospel that depicts Christ in terms of Compassion and Love. The other three only refer to the dividing up of His garments by lottery. Have we today progressed so far that while we see the materialistic implications of such a division, we still lose the real meaning? This supports the Oneness goal, Maverick. With division supporting diversity. Encouragement is a virtue that goes well with others like goodwill, sincerity, fire and enthusiasm! I love this conversation because it could be a turning point for the better.

        Welcome to Kyle J, who has certainly been doing some reading, and especially thinking about it. All true anthroposophical musing, speculating, theorizing, and conceptualizing will eventually lead from the head to the heart. It can be proven as an exact science that well-being is improved immensely by taking this work inward. Thus, I see this apparent dichotomy between Sergei Prokofieff and Judith von Halle as one that was subtly competitive but also very insightful for both of them, and us. They both shine, and remain important contributions that keep these dialogues going.

        Proky admits that he saw himself as taking on the karma of Rudolf Steiner after the failure of the CC of 1923. Judith von Halle admits, although not publicly, that she is the quick reincarnation of Edith Maryon, who died in 1924. So, it only seems natural that these two would clash at some point. Maybe he is the reincarnation of Carl Unger, who was Rudolf Steiner’s main student, and was being groomed to succeed him. This could be why Proky felt such a keen responsibility to redeem Steiner’s unfulfilled karma, cut short by at least eight years. Unger was murdered, and likely assassinated in 1929, just five years after Edith Maryon’s own untimely death.

        So, by returning in close proximity, they both serve the cause of keeping the anthroposophical movement alive. Rudolf Steiner had conducted an initiation of this kind with the Foundation Stone Meditation at Christmas 1923. Later, in his lectures on the karma of the anthroposophical movement in 1924, GA 237, he explains what he had conducted as a means for quick reincarnations by the end of the 20th century. No one can deny how important it has been to have these two people working for the cause in the 21st century.


        • Kyle J

          Thank you for the welcome, Steve. I’m really glad to see so many thoughtful comments from everyone here, and learning quite a bit in the process. For sure there is a benefit to having different takes on a subject, especially if it furthers growth and understanding as a result. What I find remarkable about anthroposophical views, is the corroborative evidence. Explanations of phenomena I haven’t heard many other places, or at least not to a detailed level. Many concepts to grasp and recall, but hopefully one day will be able to ‘feel it’ and understand it as real process.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Steve Hale

    Hi Jeremy,

    I have been eagerly waiting for this post. You have mentioned before that you think that Prokofieff was influenced by the Luciferic side, and maybe this is so. He was a Russian, and very much advocated for admission into the GAS back in the 1970’s. They were looking for a new impulse then, after many years in which the GAS was simply skimming the surface, so to speak. I recommended reading his preface, “How I Came To Write” Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries, c. 1994.

    You mention Judith von Halle as the reincarnation of Edith Maryon, and see the backlash you get. Frank Smith is one who also denies this possibility. Why? Where did it come from? Judith claims stigmata, and also a kind of deep understanding of the original Goetheanum, and the Representative of Man, which she helped sculpt in the guise of Edith Maryon. This is definitely possible as an incident of where Steiner said that he and his close associates would reincarnate by the end of the 20th century.

    It is good that you mention the book by Irina Gordienko, which is supposed to reveal the aims of Sergei Prokofieff, c. 1997. Yet, the book had already been written in 1995 by Herbert Wimbauer, who also saw something amiss in Prokofieff, ref, The Case Prokofieff. Now, according to Willy Lochmann, who first published the book attributed to Irina Gordienko, she wrote it down for Gennady Bondarev in his very library!. He has the hand-written manuscript in her writing for sale. Lochmann admits this. She died in 1999 in a supposed accident on a mountain.

    Now, in 2004, Judith von Halle appears on the scene and begins to express experiences that are considered noteworthy. Prokofieff, having written his second tome, “May Human Beings Here It!” in 2002, begins to hear her song.

    Over the next ten years, they would compete between each other, and especially Prokofieff in thinking he held the higher position. Then, he died, leaving it to her to continue. I hope she is doing this because these two were an item, as can be seen here with this discourse. Proky has his fans, and Judith has her fans. We need to come to a kind of yolk, and wherein each of us tries to see more in the other.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Martel

    It is so interesting to read you, thank you so much! I am sure -yes- there is something else to understand for us, about Judith von Halle, than what has been appearing with Prokofiev’s critics.


  11. No one is always right, even initiates make errors and have personal baggage they are struggling with all the time. If we do the work and, as mentioned above, find the truth through refining our own nature, we can verify the essence of other people’s (and our own!) spiritual experiences. Although even then things are slightly coloured by who we are in this life. There are many perspectives and interpretations.
    Anthroposophists, it seems to me, too often look at the finger pointing at the moon, rather than the moon. The truth is accessible to all who are open, free, scientifically objective and disciplined, in my experience.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. kathyfinnegan

    Jeremy, thank you. I think this post focuses us on what I consider to be the central weakness in Anthropopper blogging. a persistent intellectualizing trying to contain/control/overpower the central message of Steiner’s teachings: that we are here to develop the Consciousness Soul in this epoch – and it’s hard and it hurts. In our better moments we are tepidly functioning like a polite book club, or, even, a civilized debate club. But In our worst, like schoolyard scrappers and bullies. My preference is more inclined to a therapy group model where participants disclose their “growing edges” and look to one another’s examples of how to progress. Such a group – until it is mature enough – needs a facilitator to keep us focused: that’s, you, Jeremy. At any rate, I see us playing out the perceived interplay between Prokofiev and von Halle: the neato three-piece suit vs ‘what’s-that-red-stuff-on-your-skirt?’ .

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Katherine Beaven

    Thank you Jeremy,
    I was deeply moved by Judith von Halle’s authenticity when she came here to give a series of talks around 16 years ago. By the way, she spoke then of feeling a strong connection to England and the people here. She clearly hoped to return at some point! I haven’t studied Prokofieffs work but I do believe that regarding JvH he had an obvious blind spot.
    Thank you for broaching this controversial topic that needs healing.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Thank you very much, Katherine! I had no idea that JvH had been to Forest Row – if ever Emerson College is able to re-open for public talks again, I will try to find out if she would be willing to return.


  14. Ottmar

    Dear Jeremy, thank you very much for this report.
    I appreciate your sober, factual, fair, balanced reporting. These are such important qualities from the Anglo-Saxon world, which we can use well here in Central Europe, nay which we absolutely need (and this quality is now also missing in the EU, although this sobriety, objectivity was combined there with a large portion of national egoism). I am writing from Germany.
    It is indeed the case that there can be no solely objective judgment in the conflict between Prokofieff and von Halle, but that subjective elements will always enter into it. But, as I said, we can strive for a fair assessment. I would therefore like to describe my personal experiences with Prokofieff and von Halle.

    1 Sergei Prokofieff
    I remember how excited and amazed I was when I read Prokofieff’s first major work, Rudolf Steiner and the Foundation of the New Mysteries, in 1982. Such a comprehensive knowledge of anthroposophy, the history of anthoposophy and love for Rudolf Steiner. I was overwhelmed and completely succumbed to the suggestive power of this work.
    With time, however, I was overcome by doubts, wondering to what extent the presentation of Rudolf Steiner’s work as a unified, monolithic, purposeful work was so really true, whether there were not always breaks, improvisations, setbacks, which were not planned, known, included from the beginning.
    I also found Prokofieff’s personal appearance very strange, he always hovered a hand’s breadth above the ground (as does Peter Selg), he surrounded himself with an aura of superiority, a claim to intellectual and esoteric leadership. He always wanted to be primus inter pares on the Vorstand; see also your quotes from Selg.
    In 1986 or 87 I gave him a manuscript of a friend that was to be published in 1988 for the 1000 year celebration of the Christianization of Russia and asked him to comment on it. After a very long time the manuscript came back, accompanied by a short letter, which was written in an arrogant tone and completely belittled the book. He himself probably did not have this anniversary on the screen and only in 1989, 1 year after the 1000 year celebration, his book about The Spiritual Sources of Eastern Europe appeared. A note to this book: There he writes about the legend of the holy city Kitezh as the basic myth for the 6th age. This is a discovery of Valentin Tomberg, which Prokofieff, of course, does not mention. In academic contexts, this is called intellectual theft and one would have to give back one’s doctorate for it.
    And yes, Prokofieff constructs connections and presents them as irrefutable facts, in a sense as a statement “as from Rudolf Steiner himself”. In addition, allusions occur in his books, which must be understood in “initiated anthroposophical circles” as a reference to his own famous previous incarnations.
    Prokofieff has left us many highly interesting books; but for me there is always an ambivalent feeling: is this an exaggerated construct or is it grounded in reality. The same feeling that can creep up on one in Peter Selg s biography, or shall I say hagiography, of Rudolf Steiner.

    But there is one thing for which I am really very grateful to Sergei Prokofieff: At a time when there were very strong efforts to push aside or forget the Christian and esoteric content of anthroposophy; at a time when attempts to make anthroposophy fit the university, i.e. Waldorf school without anthroposophy, etc., at this time Prokofieff with great strength brought esotericism, esoteric Christology back to the fore (and unfortunately sometimes overshot the mark).

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Ottmar

    2 Judith von Halle
    Judith von Halle is a modest, completely authentic young woman. When I saw her for the first time in Stuttgart (in the late 80s?) at the anthropsophical youth center Forum 3, I did not know her and yet I noticed her before the lecture, talking to many people in an informal and lively way. The lecture was scheduled at very short notice, actually only by chance one got knowledge of it and nevertheless the hall was filled with several hundred people up to the last place. I suppose that she was not allowed to speak in the house of the anthr. society; therefore in the youth center. But also the old graying gentlemen from the Uhlandshöhe sat in the hall and wanted to hear and see what this woman was all about. She spoke with simple clear words and presented things so clearly and in context that the old gentlemen were very impressed. In the early lectures of JvH one could clearly distinguish 2 aspects in her lectures: Standard anthroposophy, reporting Steiner’s statements and making connections, and then, completely detached from that, her own insights. It was not that she explicitly pointed this out, no, it was simply a completely different tone, a different ductus in the lecture.
    When I heard her once in 2010 in the large hall in Dornach, I was surprised how she managed in a very short time to calm down and overcome a restless, partly hostile atmosphere, and yet filled the whole room with her tender voice. Also, I have never seen such a rapid change in facial expression in a person before: sometimes she is radiant like a little girl, then a moral woman from Victorian times, then a teenager, then a young woman with great authority.
    It was probably in 2003 or so that I asked her after a lecture: you talk a lot about the historical mystery of Golgotha; there is nothing at all to be said against that, but it would be much more important for us today to hear something about the appearance of the Christ in the etheric in the 20th century and what this means for the world today, what has changed in the world as a result. She answered disarmingly honestly: I am still young, that may come later.
    The question is: How should one deal with JvHalle s statements? For me, I cannot accept that one must believe everything she says to be true. I can accept much of what she says or writes; but about other things I have reservations, I am skeptical. I don’t want to start a substantive discussion here, but I reject a division into all or nothing. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own worldview. Can I not also ask whether Rudolf Steiner did not see many important things or whether there are elements that are missing within anthroposophy?

    Meanwhile a very unpleasant cult has arisen around JvHalle; her close followers are allowed to sit in the front row; criticism of her statements is tantamount to sacrilege. She is completely cut off from the environment and despite promises from close associates, she does not answer any questions or hints. She has meanwhile established “her own society” within the Anthroposophical Society, with her own publishing house, her own building in Dornach etc. Some of her books have disappointed me in content. Her first book And if he had not been raised I still consider her best. It is increasingly difficult to take her work neutrally; there continues to be increasing polarization pro and con.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Ottmar,

      Thank you very much for your two statements, about Prokofieff and von Halle. I learnt quite a bit from both of them. I am sorry to hear that a cult has arisen around JvH and hope that she may in time grow beyond her followers. On the other hand, your experience of Prokofieff does not surprise me at all.

      Very best wishes,



    • Maverick

      Ottmar, when I read your concluding remarks on JvH, how she is isolated in a protected environment, my reaction is that it doesn’t seem the proper conduct of service to humanity. I’ve never heard of such behavior in Steiner, or in my Ideal, the Christ Being. This leads me to understand the wisdom when Christ spoke to the multitudes in parables. He explained that He did this because some had been given ears to hear the mysteries of the kingdom. I think this is a much better way than isolating oneself. Speak to all, knowing that only those with ears to hear will understand. I may be mistaken, but I’ve noticed that Steiner also practiced this method.


      • Ottmar

        I think a JvH insider should comment on this.
        JvH is apparently not completely healthy and therefore she cannot travel so much anymore and appears very rarely in public. Furthermore it is said that she has been working on her opus magnum for years and therefore does not have so much time and energy left for other things. . With the help of deepL the texts can be translated. Remarkable the logo of her association and that she calls her center in Dornach Schreinerei (carpenter s workshop), in German the same word as the studio where the figure was carved and where the Christmas Conference was held after the fire.

        Translated with (free version)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ottmar

      It was brought to my attention that JvH received her stigmata in 2004. At the lecture in Stuttgart she tried to hide her hands but on a few instances I saw a bandage around her hands; so her first appearance there must have been shortly after 2004. I m sorry for my error.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Ottmar

    3 Judith von Halle and Sergei Prokofieff.
    Both are prominent figures in the anthroposophical scene and unfortunately (or should I say typically) they have become antagonists and they each have or had their own following. Both claim leadership and authority in the anthr. scene. But one can clearly say that in the dispute between the two, Prokofieff was clearly the driving force and he remained irreconcilable. A former member of the Vorstand confided to me that he/she approached Prokofieff and asked for a conciliatory gesture to come to a modus vivendi. Prokofieff wasnt able to do so; he was caught up in his views. Prokofieff was very contentious, he wrote polemics against Valentin Tomberg, Alice Bailey and others, and a nasty polemic against stigmatized people, without mentioning the name Judith von Halle.
    Quarrels, rivalries, jealousies existed at all times in the Anthroposophical Society, already in Rudolf Steiner’s time. He tried to address this among other things in the karmic reflections in 1924. In the course of 50 years I have met a dozen or more anthroposophists who had a claim to leadership: I have the solution! Where I am is in front!
    Humility and modesty was never a widespread virtue in anthroposophical circles. Lucifer always had his joy in the pomposity of the anthroposphs. Ahriman has also interfered, also in the Vorstand, when with lies was operated. So one must not be surprised about the far-reaching ineffectiveness of Anthroposophy in the world. My diagnosis: It is not the evil adversary powers, secret societies and evil individuals, but my(our) own weakness, own mistakes, own inability. Mea culpa!

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Maverick

    “As I read this book, I was seized by an absolute certainty of knowing that Judith von Halle in her previous life had been Edith Maryon. How can one explain these things? I just knew.”
    I wonder, Jeremy, if you were thinking of this Steiner statement when saying you just “knew”:
    “This inner power which should proceed from the Event of Palestine is called ‘Faith’. It is no ordinary force, but an inner clairvoyant power … Then thou needest no longer hold as real that only which thou seest externally; for blessed are they who are able to know what they do not see outwardly! R.Steiner, Lecture XII, The Gospel of St. John: The Nature of the Virgin Sophia and of the Holy Spirit.


    • Steve Hale

      So, you really do see the relationship between faith and gnosis! I just saw this now, Mav, and from Steiner’s own words. Awesome. Really important. You had once said that the faith beheld by Paul, with his experiences, was far beyond anything that Steiner ever knew. Maybe you are learning as we move forward.


  18. While the concepts of Lucifer and Ahriman are idealistic and materialistic polarities, the Asuric powers are the counterforces of the human middle (lungs and heart), and they attack the “I” through its impulses and passions, which can fragment the ego (GA0107/19090322).

    “What is this ego that scatters, otherwise? This ego becomes conscious because it submerges in the organism. The spiritual researcher recognises it as an unaware Intuition. This is the Intuition which is attained, while the true ego which does not at all appear submerges in the organisation, namely in the middle organisation of the human being.” (GA0067/19180420)

    Von Halle’s mystical involvement seems to differ from the above-mentioned work in ‘spiritual scientific research’, i.e. phenomenology, and from Prokofieff’s scholarly approach. She described her ‘direct – one could even say sensory – involvement in the historical events’ in the Preface of her books (e.g. google Vhx4bj9wb0EC).


  19. Wonderful article, Jeremy! You’ve certainly triggered Michael Eggert at his Egoisten blog.


    which is:



    • Regular readers of this blog will know that Tom Mellett and I have not always seen eye to eye in the past – but Tom is now facing some serious challenges in his life and when I wrote to him earlier today for his news, he told me the following: “Hi Jeremy! (I’m having) Colon cancer surgery scheduled for tomorrow. My partner Annalea with middle stage dementia from Alzheimer’s fell 10 days ago, broke her hip. Had hip surgery on her 78th birthday. Just moved to a rehab facility where she will be for at least a month, probably more. I will take 4 to 6 weeks of recovery after probably 5 days in hospital.” I wrote back to ask whether he would mind if I prayed for the best possible outcome for him and for Annalea and he replied to say: “Yes you have permission to pray for me and even to publish details of my situation to the Anthropopper community.

      My nephew is staying at the house while I am in hospital. My daughter will arrive the day I’m scheduled to leave the hospital

      Warm regards,


      So, I suggest that all of us who wish to, should say a prayer for Tom and send him good thoughts tomorrow during his surgery. I will also want to pray for him and Annalea in the days ahead for a speedy recovery for both of them. I hope many of us will want to join in with this!

      With thanks,


      Liked by 1 person

      • Steve Hale

        Jeremy, I often think about Tom and how he is doing. He and I have also had a kind of contentious, but challenging relationship over the years, yet the silver lining was always there for forgiveness at any moment. I will give my thanks and prayers for them both. When I told Tom about my wife’s death over ten years ago, he sent out the alert to others within the community, and I found that touching. I am tearing up right now, and I appreciate your words for him. He is an awesome guy who has helped me in seeing that some people do really care about this business! Please remember, he is the self acknowledged founder and leader of the Steiner Internet going back some 40 years now.

        Kind regards for this,


        Liked by 1 person

        • I’m very pleased to see that Tom Mellett is in good form after his operation and has just posted this to Facebook: “Operation a great success. No complications. I feel very upbeat. Here I am in the ICU, which is like a swank hotel room. Already been up and walking . Declined all pain meds but they insist I take Tylenol. On a liquid diet now. Thanks for all your prayers, support and love. I’m actually having this time of my life here!”


  20. Dani D.

    If one reads von Halle’s autobiographical book “Schwanenflügel” one is inclined to think that she was incarnated in Dornach during Steiner’s lifetime as Edith Maryon. But I would like ro return to the beginning of this post and to the opinion of the anthroposophist who didn’t thrust J. v. Halle. There are other anthroposophists who don’t think that this pandemic is a “Soratic infiltration” as von Halle states. Last summer I exchanged emails with the Bulgarian Dimitar Mangurov and he wrote that according to his own spiritual investigations it is not Sorat standing behind the corona crisis but the good forces. On the one hand, they want to protect us from the huge danger China and on the other hand, they want to bring humanity to reason with regard to Ahriman’s coming. Because we live so carefree, shock experiences are necessary so that we are able to perceive what the spiritual world expects of us. Behind the regulations of karma stand the light forces and the dark forces are only their tools, so Judith von Halle is only partially right.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Tom Hart-Shea

    Hi, Jeremy, I feel that my comment above on Prokofiev’s work needs a bit of elaboration. It is his writings that do not speak to me, I bear no ill-will towards the man himself.
    I never knew him but do know that a lot of people love and admire him.
    I find von Halle difficult to relate to not because of her writings but because of the mystery surrounding her way of being. And I know that there are many people who love and admire her.

    Regarding her way of being, it is not that I do not believe that one can live without eating, I have no opinion about it, neither believing nor disbelieving it. I have no experience of it.
    But I find myself inappropriately wondering about JvH’s digestive processes. After all even anthroposophical doctors recognise eating and excreting as one of the defining characteristics of living beings. I believe that Christ Himself did both (and Rudolf Steiner too!).

    I wonder how many of your readers are aware of Adrienne von Speyr. She was a doctor who practiced in Dornach for approx. 40 years in the last century. After her death it was revealed that she bore the Stigmata, and had had many mystical experience of the life and passion of Christ. During her life-time only her priest knew of the stigmata and these experiences.
    My point is this. During von Speyr’s life her work as a doctor and religious writer/speaker stood in the world on its own merits.
    There was no mystery surrounding her person which would affect people’s response to her. Adrienne von Speyr stood there as a woman amongst other women. Only after her death did her special condition become publicly known.

    Some of the contributors on this post have mentioned the twelve points of view, or world outlooks, and their nuances. Someone else mentions reaching a synthesis. And another writer, in an analogy using the colour spectrum to represent the different points of view, advocates everyone turning towards the white light.
    These ways of thinking still imply there is either an explanation or a phenomena which has a unifying effect.
    I believe the only way of unifying these different points of view is in the loving heart of the human being, NOT by forming a synthesis, but through our capacity to see someone else’s point of view, to stand in their shoes.
    I can imagine someone saying, ‘If I had Sergei Prokofiev and Judith von Halle standing here, I’d like to knock their heads together!’. To which i would respond , ‘Better to take their hands and all go for a walk together.’
    As a living soul, I can embrace other souls, even when I disagree with their point of view and feel that they are making mistakes, or have strange eating habits.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Steve Hale

      Hi Tom,

      I too believe that this is all a conversation between folks really just wanting to communicate with each other without a hint of trying to get the upper hand. As such, it is really all about information and not influence. We must love anthroposophy and its aims in order to be here, it seems to me. I found a couple of things interesting today, and maybe for those that see synchronicity as having a real value, and I have friends who do have this kind of foresight that Jung once expressed in a seminal book on the subject, we are all being challenged at every moment to wake up.

      Now, if JvH is the rather quick reincarnation of Edith Maryon, as Dani D indicates from the autobiography, and Jeremy has had a strong impression in reading the book on the the representative of man, then it means that Judith von Halle has reincarnated in just 48 years time. So, we are looking at a soul that has had literally no time in the higher worlds before returning. Please remember, Rudolf Steiner predicted this situation himself. He conducted the fundamental initiation at the CC of 1923.

      So, today, or actually February 9th is interesting for these facts:

      1) Edith Maryon was born on February 9, 1872

      2) February 9th is the Feast Day of Saint Anne Catherine Emmerich

      3) Anne Catherine Emmerich was beatified on October 3, 2004, by Pope John Paul II.

      4) 2004 is when Judith von Halle first experienced stigmatization.

      Whether these items have any value of consequence or not, I am only glad that we are having the conversation in real-time. Getting you to talk, Tom, is always worthwhile. Make sense?

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Upspince

    What a post like this reveals, Jeremy, is a simple matter that lets you see something disturbing hidden in the background. If we analyze what would be left behind by a sterile meddling in similar matters that are often aired in the anthroposophical media every few years, that would be precisely the futility of discussions regarding what people outside ourselves secretly think. What this post tells us is that, after a hundred years of Anthroposophy, we have not advanced in any direction other than the search for external people, people whom we can worship, obey, follow, question, ask, grant or deny. A matter, really childish in my opinion, like the one that feeds this whole post is enough to consider that, for the most part, a hundred years of Anthroposophy seem to have served anthroposophists for nothing useful. And we continue to persevere, speaking of others, of past times, of initiations that we do not receive or understand. Death will come at some point, and we are still busy thinking about what a certain personality will say to another personality outside of ourselves. This is sad and, from a practical point of view, unfairly boring. Thanks

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maverick

      True enough, from a “practical point of view”, this post and related comments must seem boring. Others, though, admire Jeremy’s interest in understanding the esoteric truth behind this internal division that needs to be discovered. I don’t find this boring at all; it’s actually been most challenging to examine where I stand, and why. If a little leaven can affect the whole dough, then this “certain personality vs. another personality” can be the root of a much larger trouble. Or, to put it in other words, small matters can have a large effect. So thank you Jeremy for seeing the larger picture in this.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maverick

        Realized later that this reference to “leaven” is fitting to this discussion (I’d edit my previous post, but don’t know if WordPress allows for that). This isn’t just a discussion of one personality vs. another personality, as Upspince claims. The books and teachings of these two are very similar to leaven (yeast) in that they affect the whole loaf, if I can use that analogy for the A.S. Unlike people like us who are just chatting, they are, or were in Prokofieff’s case, lecturing and disseminating their teachings as authoritative, and people are following and identifying themselves with one or the other, or both in some cases, and that makes it very appropriate to examine them in a blog such as this.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. kathyfinnegan

    Unhappily, I agree with Upspince about a central observation he/she makes: we waste so much time “speaking of initiations that we do not receive or understand”. I yearn to know more about how others are experiencing their struggles along the path Steiner teaches. I want more friends who don’t just tolerate what I experience, but understand it, share it. So few are willing to disclose how they are experiencing development of the Consciousness Soul, struggling with their Double. I feel acutely aware that the spiritual beings that comprise this 3-dimensional world and maintain the laws of nature are withdrawing. I know and respect that many Anthroposophists have dedicated themselves to three-folding and to Anthroposophical Medicine, Biodynamic Gardening, Waldorf Education, etc. But how are we supporting each other in our efforts to support the Consciousness we are here to develop?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maverick

      Can’t help but feel you’re touching on a common nerve Kathy. Perhaps this is why we’re seeing an uptick in participation on this blog? (at least it seems that way). Is there an ache, a yearning, for a forum for the kind of sharing of experiences that Kathy has mentioned? I’m learning so much from all the comments made here – all seem to show concern and a desire for constructive dialogue.


      • Steve Hale

        Yes, there is an ache and a yearning for greater personalism revealed by experiences. We tried this for a while a couple of years ago, and it was successful as far as it went. I know that Kathy was happier, and in her element at that time. Recently, I have been putting emphasis on methodology in relation to how well-being can be increased by going into the quiet zone with sense-free thinking. I wrote a response to Ton’s comment here, but it might have gotten lost in the etheric:

        Jeremy, do you have this comment still on your dashboard to post? Otherwise, I could try again.


      • Upspince

        Maverick, I am compelled to respond to you in terms that favor the practical broadening of human understanding that approaches Spiritual Science as a whole of spiritual and material concerns working in unison within an individual. It may sound ambitious, but that’s how it should be, I suppose, our attention to the things that concern these very important matters: either it is ambitious or it is nothing.

        I understand that many people are hungry for constructive dialogue. Contrary to your opinion, I don’t think this is what we should expect from Spiritual Science. In the Spiritual Science that I know, there is no room for dialogues that build fantasies. I want to explain quickly.

        These constructive dialogues usually consist of ethereal mental or verbal emissions, agreed between a group of idlers of thought for the construction and stringing of inoficious suggestions that supplant the spiritual task of true thought, a type of invisible activity that needs to help us to clean up, on an absolutely realistic basis, the role we must play in the face of the terrifying circumstances of our time.


    • Upspince

      Hi Kathy. I suppose Maverick will be willing to answer for all kinds of issues and to accommodate them so that some comments that bother him sound in the rhythm of Maverick and are not read as clearly stated.

      For a matter of elementary respect, and since it is a comment that I initiated, I will contribute to your kind approach.

      From a perspective far removed from classroom discussions, the development towards the establishment of a spiritualized but purely normal consciousness, whose service is entrenched within the evolutionary current that we have all carried for thousands of years, will no longer be able to liberate our destiny as individualities. This normal consciousness, quite spiritualized by Anthroposophy until 1925, shows beautiful things, hidden realities in the outer cosmos. And, anyway, despite showing us a part of the truth in active, tremendously dynamic paintings, within a frankly sublime whole, it is already insufficient for what we are going to go through in the next few moments.

      Spiritual Science should and does offer us guidance that we can work for ourselves, as total individuals, no longer solely as members of a community guided by what they say or do not say how much applauded spokesperson there is in the physical world. There is much spirit in the previous disquisitions of a spiritual science that uncovers the invisible behind the physical world, of course. By continuing along this path, everything must be referred, regrettably, to a kind of commonwealth that closely resembles the work initially practiced by the Gnostic remnants that formed the basis of the Catholic Church. This started with Caiaphas. An esoteric sage has reported that the first Pope of the Gnostic Church was precisely Caiaphas, an Initiate thirsty for power. The dramatic mysteries of what was lived during the first years of Christianity are still unknown by lay mystics and anthroposophists. This information that I offer is important and, by itself, should give us a little light regarding what the present time demands of us.

      Ignorance has forced us, as a society, to work for a stream of consciousness that is extensive to the first that was erected to oppose, out of greed and envy, the physical work of Initiate Jeshua Ben Pandira. The current intervention of Ahriman (the shadow of Lucifer in the human being, really) is almost identical to that promoted by the enemies of the incarnation of the Christ in whom we know as Jesus of Nazareth.

      Consciousness needs freedom and a physical setting for development. If Anthroposophy, or its representatives, believe that a presumed virus is enough to hand evolution over to Ahriman, it is the end, my friends.

      The spirituality of the soul has been trapped in all the current consciousness of normality that is imposing itself thanks to the lack of serious work from schools like Anthroposophy. A gesture of this surrender of the groups and lodges in charge of secretly guiding society, is their alarming conformity with the attacks developed by the academy towards the sacrifices of the Bodhisattvas in their incarnations as warriors determined to fight to defend freedom and put a example for the people.

      What lies ahead in less than twenty years the mankind indicates that, even a joint work of calm and “good” intellects among themselves, will take any effort of the lodges or also of the initiatives of Anthroposophy (through this consciousness “happy”, absolutely normal) to collaborate with the destruction. The followers of Anthroposophy have shown themselves incapable and fearful of facing disaster.

      Pardon my English. My original language is different.


      • Maverick

        Hi Upspince. Please, what is your original language? I tried the DeepL translator service that Ottmar mentioned yesterday – thank you Ottmar, and it worked well. If your language is one of the ones they offer, I’ll send a message in your language. If you speak more than one language, let us know an alternate, on the chance they don’t offer your original language. The kind of forum for discussion I was thinking of is something between old “farts” solving all the world’s problems at the local coffee shop, and the kind of intellectual “gibberish” in your very-hard-to-understand English. It comes across as though you’re trying to impress us with your English. Hope I don’t offend you with the “rhythym of Maverick”. The internet is not ideal for communication – hard to gauge warm from cold, red from violet.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Steve Hale

          What I think is occurring here, Mav, has happened before on this list when it is perceived by certain people that we as a group are getting in synch and starting to resonate with each other. Then, as you are seeing, an intruder/interloper comes on board who professes poor english language skills, which only increases in acuteness over just two days. So, I see what you are saying. Now, this is the first post of Upspince, just two days ago? Just look at the improvement of language skills 🙂

          So, Jeremy likely knows who this fellow is because about two or three years ago it occurred in much the same manner with a person writing under a very non-gendered name. In fact, it was when Tom Mellett was writing here, which he has recently taken up again. “Birds of a feather fly together”, it seems. Please be secure in knowing that there is nothing wrong in what you are writing to this group. It only proves the modus operandi of this person, who also feels the need to address Kathy and her needs. Please just be aware. It has happened before. – Steve

          Liked by 1 person

          • All I know about “Upspince” is that the name he/she uses is short for “Updating spiritual science”. It would be interesting to know what it is that he/she thinks needs to be updated.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Upspince

              Hello Jeremy. I will try not to divert my comments from what the rules for commenting here impose. If you allow it, I will limit my interventions to interacting with certain members on specific aspects that I consider vital. I believe that this should not be construed as an intrusion or an attempt to gain the attention that the contributions of the main author of this website deserve.

              I have not given my real name because it is not necessary. This decision corresponds to a simple fact. Attention must be directed, in a place where I am not the headline, not to obstruct the reader’s attention to his publications, Jeremy.

              If this is okay, I will continue to comment, until Jeremy believe that my participation in the comments should end.

              No pseudo-mystical pretense does move me to hide my identity. My person and intentions in life do not deserve any attention beyond what my comments reflect by themselves.

              Thanks for what you share for the anthroposophical world. Although many of us in our current existence are not anthroposophists by denomination, we feel enormous gratitude to the High Beings who, through Rudolf Steiner, saved an important part of our vitality for our spiritual development and that of a few other brothers who live in the world. That’s all.


              • Steve Hale

                Hi Jeremy, I know the link to the book didn’t come through very well, but nobody is going to read it anyway. Yet, what Gordienko is saying here is to watch out for those that cannot be trusted, who she saw as SOP. I, personally, see Proky as having much more of a scope in his anthroposophical endeavours than this lady seems to think. His last book is a veritable testimony to anthroposophical christology over the duration of his effort on behalf of the GAS, ref. “And The Earth Becomes A Sun”, which was his last book.

                You have been given another introduction by a pseudonymous figure who thinks that real names don’t matter. Yet, real names do really matter when they can be backed up with real testimony. This happened before a couple of years ago when the figure of ‘Anonymous’ arose on this blog. You remember that, don’t you? So, say hello again to someone who will groom you, too. We have been there, and done that, before.

                I hope you will have something to say next. It could prove to be very important. Thanks. – Steve


                • Hello Steve, The link to Irina Gordienko’s preface did come through the second time and I hope people will take a look at it, as she said some very useful things. I note what you say about Prokofieff’s last book and perhaps I will try to read it in due course. Re Upspince, the pseudonymous figure to whom you refer, I am hoping that he/she will give us more details on what they think is required for the updating of spiritual science. Best wishes, Jeremy


                  • Steve Hale

                    Here is the first chapter of the book *attributed* to Irina Gordienko, “How the Myth Arose”. Read it and ask yourself: How could this young lady know all about this?

                    Click to access Irina%201st%20chapter.pdf

                    As for Sergei Prokofieff’s last book, “And the Earth Becomes A Sun”, it is massively dense, which should be known by now, and also bears the rigor of having to continually refer to voluminous notes every paragraph, which requires thumbing to the end of a hardback book. For future editions, I would recommend a loose-leaf second volume for the notes, which would make it all much easier. At any rate, this guy is much more than some people think. He also beheld deep knowledge about the original Goetheanum and its esoteric configuration, much as did Judith.

                    Jeremy, I love this discussion, and see it all as very positive, amidst certain negative vibes. These come from personalities with their own vested interests. It usually only takes two, and they know who they are.


        • Upspince

          Maverick said: “The internet is not ideal for communication – hard to gauge warm from cold, red from violet.”

          Doesn’t it seem to you, Maverick, that this phrase, although shared over the internet, contains the obvious intention and effect of being highly communicative and as clear as colors in the midday sun?

          I admire your selective reasoning. There are many things that can be hidden with selective reasoning, but this is not always the case.


          • Maverick

            And I admire your efforts at communication, Upspince. Your English is easier to understand today, so thanks for that effort. Too bad you don’t share your original language – I wanted to try a post in another language. But I’d like to ask you Upspince, what is your stance on something that’s been mentioned a few times in this blog post, about coming to common terms on Lucifer’s past incarnation, Ahriman’s future incarnation, and finding the balance now, in present, in the Christ Being? I’m especially interested in your thinking on the Christ Being, since this is what originally drew my attention to Rudolf Steiner – it was his recognition that the Christ’s coming in the flesh was the central factor in the evolution of mankind. I know it’s a big subject, but maybe just mention your main thoughts, and if you’re for or against the idea that’s been proposed in this blog.


            • Upspince

              Your first question, friend Maverick:

              It is not possible to access such special mysteries from something like a democratic consensus. Agreements or impositions for an interpretative alliance are only realizable in confessional religions, never in the Mysteries.

              The things with the Apocalyptic Beings that you mention are what they are. It is not feasible, if not impossible, a concerted mass intellectual guideline for the majority to interpret similar issues in their own way. That, as far as I know, has never happened, except in the first Human Races. Esoteric truths depend on a special kind of understanding occurring in an individuality, and that is why it cannot be transmitted or heard from a mere compilation of mutual understanding between one or two hundred thinking heads.

              Balancing the apocalyptic events at each end of a Human Race is a secret job, for the benefit of the few humanity capable of grasping it. They are matters of the Initiates and not of the feeble efforts of uninitiated souls. Even dealing with demons that already swarm the physical space of homes and human institutions cannot be done with the few forces of uninitiated souls. There are methods to defend oneself and to balance some forces, but the Christ Self … that is beyond our reach.


              • Steve Hale

                “Friend Maverick”, that is your first warning to the litany that comes after. You are being groomed as a young disciple in the quest for truth, just like Kyle J, who is also beginning to experience the so-called, ‘confusion factor’, which is at the heart of the Gordienko book on Sergei Prokofieff. Please notice the inherent negativity of Upspince, which would attempt to divert your course to its liking. It needs no english translation because it is fully english, and living in the west where all the mischief is being inflicted upon the world, c. 1998 – 1332 – 666. Moving forward also means evolutionary progression.


                • Upspince

                  Steve Hale said: “Friend Maverick”, that is your first warning to the litany that comes after. You are being groomed as a young disciple in the quest for truth, just like Kyle J, who is also beginning to experience the so-called, ‘confusion factor’, which is at the heart of the Gordienko book on Sergei Prokofieff. Please notice the inherent negativity of Upspince, which would attempt to divert your course to its liking. It needs no english translation because it is fully english, and living in the west where all the mischief is being inflicted upon the world, c. 1998 – 1332 – 666. Moving forward also means evolutionary progression.

                  I’ll answer this, not for Steve. I will do so thinking of the opportunity that his honest stupidities offer me to expand on these questions.

                  Minerals, animals and plants progress, too, for the advancement of Evolution: a piece of metal extracted from the earth, an onion plant, a pig, even a normal man with no spiritual goals. All of them are part of the natural progression referred to by Steve Hale. But for none of them is it an obligation to listen and understand, at least intellectually, Rudolf Steiner, the Great Masters, and even less, one day receive the Initiation!

                  All right. Steve’s evolution is needed, in a fairly defined context.

                  Within a long experience, a very long experience, dying and being reborn and assuming organic forms within the beautiful and harsh realms of nature, it is possible to obtain a push for advancement. I mean a different advance than being born and dying like any plant or animal. It is an unpredictable advance, which is not imposed by that one-sided side of linear evolution within which almost the entire 21st century spiritualist world dozes peacefully.

                  Knowledge of Natural Evolution, through thousands of reincarnations, of course fosters a necessary knowledge of the realms on this side of evolution before claiming the right to Initiation. Going to such a right is not allowed for everyone and it is not something that inevitably happens to everyone for the simple passage of the years, even if they were millions.

                  (Steve, it is clear that you do not know these topics because nobody is so capable, not even the Christ, of initiating anyone out of obligation.)

                  It is possible that millions of souls have found, like Steve, a perfect “beauty and truth” in their service to be recycled during each cycle in the Dantean circles of Nature.

                  Initiation, if anything, produces something different, serving a side of Evolution that is also necessary and often conveniently forgotten: advancement, true advancement, which provides freedom to choose between these aspects of Evolution to certain individualities.

                  It is precisely Individualities with Initiation that sustain both fields of Evolution in each Root Race; the integrity of Evolution as Creation and Evolution that contemplates, for its part, specific Plans of the Divinity that do not necessarily consist in that wild spiritualization of the instinctive goals of the creational nature.

                  (There is no ‘confusion factor’ here Mr. Hale, if that’s what you call yourself. To my knowledge, no one has rejected Steve’s entries because they do not have real photos of him, his exact address or his authentic date of birth. Among the many comments that I have been able to follow from Steve Hale for a few years, I have seen interesting things said by him and I have to congratulate his great ability to defend Anthroposophy … whatever that means to him.)


    • Ottmar

      Dear Kathy, you write “I yearn to know more about how others are experiencing their struggles along the path Steiner teaches. So few are willing to disclose how they are experiencing development of the Consciousness Soul, struggling with their Double.”

      I feel that this is a very serious, urgent question from you and it speaks to me, touches me. I would like to say something about it, but there are so many BUTs, where to start? There are so many possibilities that such a conversation can fail. The easiest question is whether the participants in this blog all have a good knowledge of anthroposophy. Already with the question of personal maturity, answers are no longer possible. Another question is whether one really wants to or can share very personal experiences in such a public forum. It requires a lot of trust. So you have to find a good middle ground between personal or too personal things and general statements. General statements always have something intellectual about them, you can always contradict them and there are so many, infinitely clever books about anthroposophical initiation, by Prokofieff and others, in German for example by Malte Diekmann, Der Weg der Initiation, Anthroposophie und die neuen Mysterien, The path of initiation, Anthroposophy and the new mysteries. All this is so clever, Steiner’s statements so well referred to and summarised, that it is extremely difficult to add anything to it. And yet one is left somewhat perplexed.

      My very simple answer would be: -first of all study of Anthroposophy -then secondly personal purification in thinking, feeling, in the etheric body and in the outer conduct of life and -thirdly exercises, meditations. All 3 aspects naturally run through the whole life. For me personally, the second aspect means purification of the etheric body, e.g. no drugs, vegetarianism, purification of the astral body: pay attention to negative feelings, i.e. fear, anxiety, hatred, envy, jealousy, bossiness etc etc and then do not suppress these feelings violently, but let them go, send them away. This is a very broad field. And thirdly, exercises: There are very different types, this is very individual. I personally like to use the mantras from Rudolf Steiner’s Esoteric School, there are many mantras, poems, the Foundation Stone, but parts of the New Testament are also very suitable. In addition, there are the 6 side? exercises and many others. In Germany a whole movement has arisen under the title: anthroposophical meditation. It is important that one really keeps faithful to these things, that one keeps faithful and persevering, that one really does these “meditations” daily and does not change the exercises so quickly, i.e. do them for at least a few months before you change anything.

      One can ask oneself: what is an expression of the consciousness soul, what is an expression of the sensation soul and the intellectual soul? In the great operas of Verdi, great emotions are lived,celebrated that belongs to the sensation soul. But if I consciously handle my feelings, if I notice that bad emotions arise, I can consciously intervene and say stop. When I consciously handle my feelings -and I don’t mean ignore them or suppress them- but become master of the feelings, like a rider on his horse, when this happens, it is an act of the consciousness soul.

      OK, I wanted to respond positively to your question, Kathy. I don’t know if you could relate with what I said and if so, with which part in particular. Most important for initiation, I think, is how important is this to me? Is it a recreational hobby or is it a struggle for life and death. If the latter is the case, the spiritual world, Christ will always be with you.


  24. kathyfinnegan

    Thank you all for your generous, complex and sensitive responses. I’ve written in earlier posts about what a double-bind i feel in moving from day to day – balancing at the fulcrum point feels so unfair. I’m arrogant enough to blame God for what I regard as design flaws in the “Plan”. Covid has only deepened this struggle. Ottmar, it really does feel like a struggle for life and death at times. Upspince, you said “consciousness needs freedom and a physical setting for development”. And that leaves us smack in a vise, doesn’t it? Since I was 4-5 years old I have had many experiences of the spiritual worlds. When I am in those brief moments I am utterly at home – and twice the living Christ told me I am not alone when I was in great (emotional) pain. Maverick, I sense in you someone with great faith in Christ’s presence.

    Here is the crux of the problem for me. I am completely conflicted about wanting to both know and not know the “Whole Picture”. Two years ago my sister died suddenly (we’d lived together for 20 years). Three days after she died I became aware that when I left the house I didn’t feel compelled to go back in to “check” everything (running water, coffee pot. etc.) I realized suddenly how compulsive I had become and now it was gone. Then I realized why. For over a year I had been waking up in the middle of the night thinking my sister, who seemed in perfect health, was dead. I would go to her door and listen to hear if she was breathing. If I couldn’t hear, I’d wake her on a pretense and she would get mad at me. This happened 4 or 5 (?) times. I didn’t repress the knowledge that this was happening, but I never thought about it! In my field I am aware we “bind” anxiety in obsessive-compulsive behaviors – but I had no insight into it in myself.

    This is where I’m stuck. How can I be a genuine initiate when I don’t want to know my sister is dying – or myself, for that matter? Now, with Covid, this conflict feels more raw. For instance, I was with a dying patient. Her daughter and grandchildren were outside watching through the window. I realized – wearing two masks, a visor and a gown – I must have looked like a space man to those children – who were crying. And there was nothing I could do to help – to comfort them. I have, at times, felt myself to be in the “right” place at the “right” time. But, more often, not – and it is so hard to make peace with that – AND I DON’T LIKE HAVING TO. . .


    • Steve Hale

      Hi Kathy,

      I just want to write and say how much your personal experience is felt by those you express it to. This has actually always been so, and I think of my own grief when my wife died suddenly some ten years ago, although her health had been compromised when she suffered a serious CVA in 1997. For me, my wife was in declining health for some 13 years, and for you it seems that your sister died really suddenly, which is the shock that you express so well here. Ottmar is a wonderful person to have to help draw these things out, and you need this kind of listening. I have always been there for you in my way, which might not have the resonative tone that you desire, but was/is still there.


  25. Tom Hart-Shea

    Hi, Kathy, It is a very moving message you left here. I believe your presence with the dying patient, and her daughter and grandchildren nearby, would be of great value to them. My experience of working with children tells me children are a lot more robust than we can easily gauge and appearing as a ‘spaceman’ would not phase them unless they were very young indeed.
    Suffering is very much the angel’s business. They know what people need.
    If we are not able to relieve suffering then we can sometimes lend our loving presence and give our time to be with people who are suffering. To wait with them. And that itself can be a blessing.
    It sound to me as if that is what you were doing. You were blessing them with your loving presence. As i suspect you also did for your sister. And after her death your sister will have looked lovingly on those times you woke her in the night, feeling your love and anxiety for her.
    I have no direct experience of Christ, but somehow I believe He is not too concerned about whether people are initiates or not. I suspect that question is something for the spiritual beings to decide.


  26. kathyfinnegan

    Tom, thank you for your time and response to my concerns. Here is my conflict: Yes, In moments of great clarity, I know that the Christ who loves and accepts me utterly does not put conditions on loving me. Yet, I feel/think we are all here in this conflicted, finite, world to freely choose to walk the path of the initiate – so that when we are done with this illusory, material world, we can fully participate in spiritual worlds. I have been interpreting Steiner to be saying that this is precisely why we are here – and that in this epoch, spiritual beings are backing off to leave it in our hands.

    But he also says that more and more of us will “fall away” the farther we proceed through these stages. I’ve never thought of being initiates as “something for the spiritual beings to decide”, rather, I’ve thought it is the very reason we’re here. I would like to be wrong about this – mostly because I revolt against the idea of the possibility of failure – or that it should ever be “too late” for anyone. Or…might you be talking about the “spiritual beings” as something we already are? That we are deciding from a higher level? That we can choose not to complete the human, “I-being” project – but not as a failure?

    And this takes me back to the awareness that grew out of denial that my sister was dying. Is my feeling of being in a perpetual double-bind the result that I have already chosen not to know what I don’t want to happen? Have I chosen not to advance in spiritual development? Relax, Tom: …I’m laughing right now…how much do you charge for a psychic reading?


    • Steve Hale

      Hi Kathy,

      What if it is all about what you have been reading now for some three years on this blog? There was no fee, ever. You found out that people suffer just like you. I told a story recently which means nothing to you, but I saw it as an example of what it means to experience the pain of loss. We can do this and still go on in support of the science of the spirit.

      Just reaching out a hand, and likewise to Tom Hart Shea. Kind regards.


    • Ottmar

      Dear Kathy, I have read your last 2 posts here again and I am not sure whether I should say anything at all in response and if so what. I can at most make a few footnotes and you pick out what is appropriate for you, what appeals to you.

      Many people have psychic experiences or encounters in dreams with deceased people. It is not always easy to understand this exactly, to classify it. Is it a projection, is it a real encounter? There is also a great uncertainty as to how we should react.

      Rudolf Steiner often spoke about how the deceased affect our lives, how they influence us. But we can also do something for the deceased. There is the well-known “reading” for the deceased, whereby the deceased only hear what lives in our soul, what lives in our soul through reading. And yet there is a difference whether we only read quietly, let the content, so to speak, come to life in our soul, or whether we also express this inner animation, this inner experience, with loud words. Through the larynx, through the movement of the air, more is actually “moved” than just by reading quietly. You have to try these things yourself, not just once, but through weeks and months.

      While we can address the deceased directly, when we “pray” for the living we are actually supposed to ask our angel to address the angel of the one who is still alive. This can be done more or less consciously. What is important is that the whole thing is carried by the attitude or the request: Not my will be done, but Your will O Lord. Without this attitude it becomes black magic.
      Rudolf Steiner also gave many mantras and prayers for the deceased and the sick, for mothers whose sons are at war or who have sick children. Rudolf Steiner formulated his mantras very precisely, rhythm and the order of the vowels were very important to him and he also describes this with the help of some examples. Of course, it is not possible to translate the content, rhythm and vowels of a mantram into another language in this way. The first priority in translation is, of course, the correct transmission of the content. But if you spend a long time with a prayer or mantram, you will find new words and formulations yourself. In a good translation, one tries to arrive at the thought, the idea that was said or written with the help of the words and sentences in the foreign language, and then, when one has arrived at this original thought, one can express it in one’s own language. Analogously in music: the score gives the possibility to come to the musical idea and a good musician will then express this on his instrument, whereby any “acoustic” music is always only an imperfect expression of the musical idea. Rudolf Steiner often spoke of how difficult it is to express spiritual things in our language.

      Of course I can’t say much about the double-bind relationship with your sister. I have a feeling there is a karmic story behind it. But we should try not to let ourselves be too controlled by something like that. Of course we cannot completely dissolve such a bond, but we should find the possibility to have a free space for development. Should we not succeed in finding this free space, at least to a certain extent, it would certainly not be good and we would have to consider what means we would have to use to push back this negative influence.
      It is not easy for me to talk about such intimate esoteric things. It is, I think, the first time I am doing this in public. On the one hand, you expose yourself and on the other hand, the person I’m talking to, whom I don’t know personally, doesn’t want to hear it either. Let alone the cynics.
      All the best for you, Kathy. Ottmar


  27. kathyfinnegan

    Steve: 1) I don’t understand the reference to a “fee”. 2) I have never doubted the massive suffering on this planet. 3) The inner conflict I was communicating was not the pain of loss of my sister.- but that I DIDN’T WANT TO KNOW SHE WAS DYING…and the implications of that for the development of the Consciousness Soul. If you want to respond to my post – try to identify where you get stuck in your development – not how you think you escape being stuck – but how you are stuck here and now and how it challenges your grasp of Anthroposophy. Then we’ll have something worth talking about.


  28. kathyfinnegan

    Ottmar, thank you so much for your response. And you have addressed something I have been conflicted over for the last few months. A friend’s husband recently died. For months I’ve watched/listened to him double down on all his materialistic, narcissistic complaints about the world and everyone in it. He just couldn’t believe he was dying. He was terrified of being alone. His wife had to take her phone with her when she went to the bathroom or took a shower because he had to have constant contact. During all this time I kept thinking I should “read” Steiner’s thoughts to him, but didn’t know if it was appropriate knowing he would not want it. But I woke this morning with a “feeling” he was experiencing an utter aloneness and thought I should begin reading for him. Thank you, Ottmar, for your thoughts – it was like being given permission/encouragement to do what I thought I should.

    As for my sister – I think I didn’t make clear what it was about her dying that has left it’s mark on me. I have had no doubt she is finding her way in the spiritual worlds. We had about 8 days together after learning how sick she was. She told me she wasn’t afraid to die – but only wished she’d “loved more”. I hope I can die that well. And I’ve felt her presence since. She helped me handle a feral cat she’d brought in the house before she died…a long story. But the thing about her death that has thrown me is the realization I am not the fearless initiate I thought I was. I hid what I knew from myself. I was operating from a state that my sister would have characterized as not “spiritually impeccable”. I didn’t want to know what I knew.

    Ottmar, what a relief and blessing it is to be able to express this to someone who can hear it. Thank you…


    • Maverick

      Hi Kathy. It’s a relief hearing that you’ve received some insight and comfort from the counsel given in this group. Most times I feel that we’re miserable “counsellors” who speak about things without understanding, much like Job’s friends, the ones to whom God spoke saying, ““Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:1).

      Said a prayer for you in my meditation this morning, and received an image from Revelation 12, of the suffering woman – suffering due to labor pains bringing birth to a new entity, and due to persecution from the dragon. This woman seems to have some relationship to the divine Sophia – have heard this on numerous occasions, most recently the conference on the divine Sophia at the Anthroposophical Society in Melbourne, AU. What I’m not clear on is that even after the epic battle where Michael defeats the dragon, both the woman and the dragon appear on Earth. The dragon is still enraged and persecuting the woman, but the Earth helps her. This seemed to me to be the message I was supposed to get/give, that this may be the type of supportive group that you’re needing/seeking, and that we should strive to be helping, rather than darkening counsel with words without knowledge.


  29. kathyfinnegan

    Yes, Maverick – I feel myself the recipient of both insight and comfort and am so grateful for it. I was ambivalent about returning to this blog because it felt so unrelentingly abstract/intellectual when I first found it. But with Covid and getting more time for myself, I tried again, to find someone to talk to about Anthroposophy. This time it’s different – and I want you to know I first felt the difference in YOUR generous presence and input. I get flashbacks to my days in graduate school when I felt trapped by certain professors’ mental masturbation. I needed a knight in shining armor to race to my rescue. It was the heyday of Behaviorism in the U.S. and heaven help the student who tried to talk about something more than such a demeaning world view.

    I, too, am confused about Michael’s battle with the dragon. It wasn’t won – it just had a change of venue. It’s still raging and growing – I look at the U.S. Capital! I look at the abject fear and denial expressed in narcissism and materialism, and the denials of violence, racism, climate destruction, a sociopathic President, rulership by Monsanto and Exon, et al. Did I choose this? Was I kicked out of heaven so I could screw up this planet? Or did I leap out of heaven to help? And how is my “help” contributing to the problem? Then I read some of our interminable posts about Asuras and Sorath and Ahri and Luci and who’s buddy with who…and. oh, yes – now it’s all perfectly clear.

    Again, Maverick, I want you to know how grateful I am for you making time to hear this old lady. .

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maverick

      Forgot to mention Kathy, that rather than the woman jumping out of heaven, your predicament reminds me more of the angel in the first few verses of Revelation 10, who plants one foot in the sea and one on the land. Your situation with the “double-bind” you’ve spoken of reminds me of this image – one foot in the spiritual waters of the sea, and the other planted firmly in the material world of caring for the “least of these”. Certainly caring for others is a manifestation of spiritual attributes, but finding that balance between the thought world, and “walking the talk” (last blog post) is a challenge. I could be mistaken, but that’s the image I have of you. Cheers.


  30. Maverick

    Thanks Kathy, nice to hear some kind words, especially on this weekend when the topic on people’s mind is Love. And thanks for the laughs – your sense of humor is welcomed. It felt good to break a smile, and guffaw!
    I didn’t mean to suggest that you were the woman jumping out of heaven – just that the image/story probably has some implications for all women; in fact, for all humanity, who identify themselves with the divine Sophia.

    And although that list of hindrances you gave is foreboding, don’t discount the effect one person, or a small collective group, can have in flipping that on its head and bringing about positive change. One only needs to recall the effects on Earth of the Mystery of Golgotha to see what one person, filled with the energies of Holy Spirit, and committed to doing the will of the Father can accomplish. There’s hope for you, for me, even for this small group of souls contributing to this blog. We just need to keep our face towards the Light, and the shadows will fall behind us. Hope you have a great weekend.


  31. kathyfinnegan

    Thank you, thank you, Maverick – for the image of an angel straddling the shoreline! And you tell me this just when I learned something new – something you may know: from the beginning of time on this planet, not only have there been no two identical snowflakes. nor no two same fingerprints, but there have never been two identical waves breaking on all the shores of our Mother!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  32. Maverick

    Came across this interesting thought by JvH:

    “Instead of an I-conducted and free, socially responsible cooperation of individuals, the I-activity has not reached its full potency, so that today there are large associations of people who – well beyond previous epochs when such things were appropriate – maintain a group-soul attitude. In these intellectually-pandemic associations of people, self- and group-needs speak of a corrupted soul activity that has not been conquered by the I.

    von Halle, Judith; von Halle, Judith. The Coronavirus Pandemic (p. 33). Rudolf Steiner Press. Kindle Edition.

    This blog seems to be a good example of the type of fluid structure around which individual souls, having conquered their I’s, are able to congregate. The G.A.S. seems to have more of the group-soul attitude she refers to, as do those who rally around any human teacher, to the exclusion of others. Too much of the outdated control over others, wanting all to fall in line, rather than realizing the full potency of the I-activity. Of course, there needs to be unity and cooperation, but around what is the question? Around man-made teachings, or around what those teachings are pointing to? Can the G.A.S. and her own F.A.S. be counted among the “intellectually-pandemic associations of people”?


    • Steve Hale


      As you can see by the comments in relation to this quote from JvH’s book on the Corona pandemic, there are diifficulties with her interpretation here:

      “Instead of an I-conducted and free, socially responsible cooperation of individuals, the I-activity has not reached its full potency, so that today there are large associations of people who – well beyond previous epochs when such things were appropriate – maintain a group-soul attitude. In these intellectually-pandemic associations of people, self- and group-needs speak of a corrupted soul activity that has not been conquered by the I.”

      In Jeremy’s prior posting that concerns JvH and her book, I remember now making a similar remark in relation to her belief about Karma becoming the victim of Sorath. You know, a kind of anti-Lord of Karma, as if that is possible. I’ll have to go look at it again, but it also causes concern, like the above quotation you cite. Here is that previous essay from November 14, 2020.


  33. kathyfinnegan

    This thought of JvH’s rings true to me. Nearly every client I have worked with through the years has been struggling with the Group-“I” in some fashion. Some cripple themselves by clinging to the perceived safety of the group, or feel victimized by it, or are trapped in self-destructive rebellion against it. I think there is a deep fear of fully developing the “I” related to our profoundly materialistic world view. When each unique snowflake hits the ground, when each unique wave hits the shore – they cease to exist.

    And Steiner teaches us that multiple spiritual beings “sacrificed” themselves to produce the physical, etheric and astral bodies. What we may be neglecting to grasp is that once the fourth and final stage is completed we will begin the reverse journey – taking those bodies with us in some fashion and developing them further. But will we be called upon to freely sacrifice them in some future producton?



    • Upspince

      Kathy, let me bring back an idea expressed in other comments.

      I said elsewhere that there is a purpose in the most sacred aspect of Human Evolution, and that is that through the Initiates, and only through them, the genetic advances of a Root Race are kept safe. Ordinary human beings like us cannot, in this sense, “carry” anything with us when we die, neither extrasensory bodies nor powers that we have not developed by ourselves. As far as we know, this will no longer be a matter of “decisions” that rest with higher beings. It will depend, from now on, exclusively on us. It will be a peculiarity of every soul thirsty for hidden wisdom will reveal.

      The powers of this world know exactly where to attack. If a perverse connoisseur of the hidden anatomy of the human being attacks the lungs of a person who carries a certain mission for the world, he is trying to prevent the memory of his own past existences, of his past sins. What is a demon like these looking for? Something that goes unnoticed by Waldorf education, for example. That the diabolical education that our parents inherit from generation after generation for centuries, deceives the human body of that child with beliefs about how “kind” that child was already born and that it should not worry, when it grows up, about the naivety in the that, by not remembering who he was, he can sink until he dies in adulthood. That is what modern education ruled by dark beings, wants: damage the mission of that soul even if it is still alive.

      If those who work for these same dark powers, make breathing difficult among humanity, as today, the fear for the spiritual will be a de facto fact. One thing apart is to resolve the veracity of any current virus: the difficulty in breathing, the fear that this entails, is a fact.

      People, due to a massive fear never felt before, are forced to lose their meager attention by the mysteries of reincarnation, it will be easy to force them also to forget Karma and make them give up all their freedom to prevent the Karma of humanity in its entirety continue. It is the realization of the earthly paradise: the end of Karma!

      This is what the end of the Fifth Root Race really means, and that telluric cataclysm suggested by Steiner, plotted for the end of the sixth race, will plummet within a few years on the planet. Initiates never play with their words.

      Going back to my idea. It is the Initiates who keep those secrets of immortal biology and not human beings “kind” only in appearance but ignorant and perverse in the background, with the soul of slaves and lovers of terrestrial paradises, those who keep the achievements of a Race that will be destroyed soon.

      The tasks not carried out by the crafts or the conscious efforts of a soul during many corporal existences as a human being, is a work that remains for nature within Hades, within the very poetic infernal circles of Dante Alighieri (an esoteric Master, as well as a celebrated poet.)

      Starting from this first suggestion, it seems that Hell is not the result of a conceptually cultivated belief in the West. We can trace, like Steiner, the concept of Hell, but it will not explain what it really has always been and the task that Hell currently has. In fact, many religious forms give an account of their existence and long standing. Hell is a natural and spiritual reality. Nothing would explain the magnetism of any planet and the gravitational drop were it not for the central Hades of the Earth. Nothing would explain the terror of the shadow of the world if, within Hell, Proserpina’s compassion did not work to destroy the false animal creations of which the current and perverse intellectual animal falsely called “man” is capable.

      Someone will say: Who would have thought that Saint Thomas Aquinas, “the great teacher of Christendom”, would be able to suggest the existence of something as “medieval” as Hell? But the truth is that Thomas Aquinas was someone more than a mere organizer of Catholic doctrine.

      At the end of a cycle of existences, every soul that has not fostered, through Initiation, the gradual development of its spiritual individuality, descends into Hades. The human soul is as old as the number of “opportunities” to prepare to enter the doors of Initiation. This is not a matter, however, of any unprepared “craving”.

      That’s the way it is with Hell. And one should not simply smile or babble ironies against these assertions. It is possible to investigate such realities in the light of Esotericism. There is much of that esotericism in Anthroposophy, but to discover it we must devoutly follow the advice of Rudolf Steiner. We are in stellar moments towards which Steiner’s spiritual gaze rested. Anthroposophists, more than anyone else, have prevented what they know from joining Platonism (we are not talking about “shamanism”), and thus Anthroposophy will wander for a few more years until it is consumed and disappears as a necessary source of influence, even if we meet in the Goethanum for many more years!

      There is, likewise, a cliclo, of a historical nature, revealed within the meager Platonic spirit that still floats above the infernal atmosphere of the early 21st century.

      It is no longer time for Aristotle to “platonize” in his way about spirit, as he tried 2300 years ago. It is time for the Platonists to help humanity understand the things not said by Plato and Aristotle. It is time for our Lord, the Christ, to teach us these things. Modern Platonism will continue to offer one of those doors for another ten years.


  34. New group-souls and free communities are related to the development of the germinal spirit-self (manas) and to a future sixth (slavic) cultural epoch:

    “In the past, mankind became free of the group-soul. Through spiritual-scientific knowledge mankind is now for the first time in the position to discover, with the utmost certainty of purpose, what will unite mankind again. When men unite together in a higher wisdom, then out of higher worlds there descends a group-soul once more.” GA0098/19080607 (cf. GA 257).

    Liked by 1 person

    • kathyfinnegan

      Ton, will you speak more to what you understand of the higher group soul? The lived experience of separateness within connectedness baffles me after I experience it. While I experience it I feel wholly “known” and wholly accepted – and even that my rebellion(?) against it is part of it. Do you understand it as something like that?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maverick

        Hi Kathy. Maverick here. You are a complex individual, and you should be, as we all should be who are the offspring of a complex Infinite Mind. Just wanted to say that I like your style of inquiry – it shows a degree of humility which we all would do well to have. You know a lot more than you’re given credit for; than even you give yourself credit for – don’t condemn yourself. So you get confused – that’s our human failing. All of the created kingdoms – mineral, plant, animal, all have an ingrained memory; only man forgets! We forget where we came from; forget the heights from which we descended. We’re told that those memories are stored up in our sub-conscious, which, when Divine Spirit combines with our spirit, connect with the universal consciousness, in which is stored everyone’s memories. Steiner called these the akashic records. My point is, you have access to the answers; they’re hidden in the most mysterious place – within! Keep seeking, friend, and ask for more patience.


        • kathyfinnegan

          Mornin’, Maverick! Again, you’ve hit the nail on the head. I keep trying to jump to the ending before I read the whole story. “Patience” has always been my nemesis. My excuse is that I come by the problem honestly – I’m an extrovert by temperament, an Aries by zodiac and chose a loud Italian family in New York to raise me. So I guess I set this bar with Spirit’s nudge, didn’t I?

          Seriously, your encouragement has come home to me from several directions. I mentioned that I started to “read” to my neighbor’s husband who just died. I chose Knowledge of the Higher Worlds – since I read it 50+ years ago and it was the beginning of esoteric study for me. So I’m reading to him about patience and how important it is to not prematurely mix the spiritual with the earthly experience! And how it is necessary to remain indifferent to sympathies and antipathies alike. And I think I’m in the groove. Then my neighbor calls to tell me she has to go out shopping for a crypt – because he didn’t want to be buried in the ground! And how much do I think a crypt is going to cost?

          Patience – equanimity -ooohmmm. PS: where were you when I was looking for a knight in shining armor? Oh, yeah, you probably hadn’t learned to walk yet.


  35. I am probably not qualified to comment or judge the issues raised, though I have in the past read some of Prokofieff’s works, and still have two or three. An interesting character, it seems, though I myself never met him. I favour(ed) his “Spiritual Origins of Eastern Europe” rather more than his anti-Valentin Tomberg polemic, though.

    I was slightly acquainted with his father, the son of the composer Prokofiev. I can see the resemblance, somehow, in the photo used on the blog post.


  36. Midnight Rambler

    Returning to the question of how a perceived knowledge of reincarnation can play into a person’s life and their destiny, here is what Steiner says about this in a lecture from February 25th 1912 arising from the number of people he met claiming to be Mary Magdalene. He stresses the need for regular, sound and absolutely careful training in this domain.

    “We would understand many a human being in his 30th, 40th, 50th year — we would know why he has this or that inclination, why he feels so deeply the cause of his dissatisfaction — we would understand many things if we were to trace the life of such a man back to his childhood. In his childhood, we would see how parents and surroundings influenced him; what was called forth during childhood in the form of sorrow and joy, pain and pleasure — things perhaps that are completely forgotten, but influence a man’s entire state of health and of mind. For what surges and rolls down into the hidden depths of soul-life out of our consciousness, continues to be active there below. The strange part of it all is that these forces which are working there, first work upon ourselves and do not abandon — so to speak — the sphere of our personality. Hence, when clairvoyant consciousness descends to these depths (this occurs through imagination, through what we call imaginative knowledge), when it descends to the depths where these forces are active in sub-consciousness, as just described, then man always finds his own self. He finds what surges and lives within him. And this is a good thing. Indeed, in a true self-knowledge, man must learn to know himself; he must contemplate and learn to know all the impulses which are active within him.
    If man does not pay attention to this fact, if he pays no attention to the fact that first of all he will find his own self with all that constitutes it and is active within it, he will be exposed to all kinds of errors when his clairvoyant consciousness penetrates into sub-consciousness through the exercises of an imaginative knowledge. Through a form of consciousness resembling the ordinary consciousness, man cannot be aware at all that he comes across his own self when he descends into the depths of soul-life. At a certain stage of development it will be possible to have visions — let us say — to see shapes which are unquestionably something new, when we compare them with what we have learnt to know through the experiences of life. Such a circumstance can indeed arise. But if we were to imagine that such things belong to the outer world, this would be a great illusion. These things do not arise in the same way in which the facts connected with our inner life generally arise in ordinary consciousness. If we have a headache, this is a fact which enters usual consciousness. We know that the pain is in our own head. If we have a stomach-ache, the pain is experienced within our own self. If we descend to the depths which we call the hidden soul-depths, we can only be within our own self — yet we can see things which appear to us as if they were outside our own selves. Let us take, for instance, a striking case. Let us suppose that someone desires most intensely to be the reincarnated Mary Magdalene, (I once mentioned that I have already met twenty-four reincarnated Magdalenes in my life); let us assume that someone desires most intensely to be Mary Magdalene. But let us also assume that this person does not confess this wish to himself (we need not confess our wishes to ourselves — this is unnecessary). Well — someone may read the story of Mary Magdalene and may like it immensely. In his sub-consciousness the desire to be Mary Magdalene may now immediately arise. He is aware of nothing in his usual consciousness except that he likes this character. The person in question has a liking for this character. He is aware of this in his upper consciousness. But in his sub-consciousness lives the burning desire to be himself this Mary Magdalene — yet he knows nothing about this. He does not bother about this. He is guided by the facts of his usual consciousness; he can go through the world without being compelled at all to become aware of this erroneous fact in his consciousness — the intense wish to be Mary Magdalene. But let us suppose that such a person has attained, in some way or other, a kind of occult training. This would enable him to descend into his sub-consciousness — but he would not become aware of the fact, “in me lives the desire to be Mary Magdalene” — he would not become aware of this in the same way that he becomes aware of a headache. If he were to notice this desire to be Mary Magdalene then he would be sensible and assume toward this desire the same attitude as toward a pain — namely, he would try to get rid of it. But through an irregular descent into sub-consciousness, this does not take place, because his desire acquires the form of something which is outside his own personality, and to the man in question it appears as the vision: “You are Mary Magdalene”. This fact stands before him, is projected outside his own being. Moreover, a human being at this stage of development is no longer able to control such a fact through his Ego. This lack of control cannot arise when we undergo a regular, sound and absolutely careful training; for then the Ego accompanies all experiences in every sphere. But as soon as the Ego no longer accompanies all our experiences, the fact described above can arise in the form of an objective outer happening. The observer believes that he can remember the events connected with Mary Magdalene and feels himself identified with this Mary Magdalene. This is unquestionably possible. I emphasize this possibility, because it shows you that only a careful training and the conscientiousness with which we penetrate into occultism, can rescue us from falling into error. If we know that we must first see before us an entire world, that we must see around us facts, not something which we apply to our own selves, but something that is in us, and yet appears like the picture of a whole world — if we know that we do well to consider what we first see before us is the projection of our own inner life — then we possess a good shield against the errors which can beset us along this path. The best thing of all is to consider at first everything that rises out of our inner being as if it were an exterior fact. In most cases these facts arise out of our desires, vanities, ambition — in a few words, out of all the qualities connected with human selfishness”.


    • Upspince

      Hi Midnight Rambler.

      One would not expect such rigor from a novice who is unaware of the most important theoretical doctrine on reincarnation to begin with. I want to emphasize before continuing the “theoretical doctrine”. In Christian Esotericism, a spiritual teaching that is not diligently discovered in life and put into practice is simply venerable theory, nothig more.

      Rather, the primary objective that a small group of those interested in the reality of reincarnations of the soul should pursue would be to offer them basic insights; we speak of plausible grounds for self-discovery of one’s previous existences. From this point of view, this hypothetical group should not be concerned, as a first rule of self-protection and seriousness, with the identity assumed by souls other than their own in history. Rudolf Steiner, as a great Initiate who speaks, above all, for other Initiates of his future, provides us with the exemplary context about how an esoteric student should conduct his research: From general or universal rules to individual truths.

      Unfortunately for 1912, there were few individuals capable of receiving individual insights that led directly to the content of their previous existences; one had to resort, as an aid, to paradigmatic cases that illustrated errors in the application of the universal rules.

      Commenting on of the text quoted here, the task of the Master reincarnated in the personality known as Rudolf Steiner is limited to exposing the clairvoyant fact, not necessarily the methods that would place us within the activity as such.

      Steiner raises an illustrative case of so many to the fore. He proposes other additional cases in different conferences to warn that even Initiates can make mistakes if they allow themselves to be won by carelessness. Clairvoyance offers all kinds of networks of uncontrolled fascination that can envelop the researcher in these things.

      A small group of people willing to receive general references and examples to form criteria of self-discovery, does not need such an iron preparation or comparable to the level of souls capable of telling us who corresponds to this or that previous reincarnation if is not absolutely necessary. Even if in the spiritual view of the esoteric teacher a small group of trained human beings projects a lot of discipline and confidence, introducing stimuli to their students is not a matter for the Initiate alone to decide. We all have guides and bosses. The Initiates too.

      I only mention things that I know, not because of me, but because of God’s mercy.


  37. kathyfinnegan

    I’m afraid I am witnessing a new strain of TOME-21 and don’t want to be infected. But I have one question: where does Steiner speak to genetic advances of the Root Race being kept safe through Initiates? I have met several people over the years who think Steiner was a Nazi. As a Buscadora of spiritual truth, I would like to see the source of that interpretation.


    • Steve Hale

      I find it very interesting to hear this kind of interpretation of spiritual evolutionary truths coming from one who seeks to even stand above the fray of the Steiner cult. We ‘steinerites’ still look at a logical world conception because it has been indoctrinated into it through the mental framework of the modern education system. Thus, it should be looked upon as refreshing rather than infecting when someone comes along and speaks on a purely objective level without any hint of personal bias. For example, Edgar Cayce in his readings, only referred to the human being involved as an “entity”, which likely encompasses a series of past lives perceived in the overall compass.

      So, this kind of thing has happened before in relation to the spiritual science of Rudolf Steiner. The example I have in mind is Max Heindel, who followed a Steiner course in 1907, and then left for America in order to start a Rosicrucian Fellowship in Oceanside, California. This should be well-known by now. If not, then ask about it!

      Also to be considered in this context of the kind of information this blog is receiving is that Steiner did speak about mediumistic activity, and how it proceeds. Ref. GA 254.

      Much later by all accounts is the work of the Law of One in the 1980’s, and I wonder if many or any here on this blog know about this activity? So, I am not willing to dismiss what is coming from someone who just might be feeling more comfortable here in this setting. It is no different than talking to someone about how the Vulcan Beings in the aftermath of the Event of 1879, the so-called “Heavenly Host of Michael”, began to come down to earth in order to commune with us humans. Thus, it is all a matter of perspective, and to be truly objective and impersonal is what this entity known as ‘Upspince’ is trying to reveal. While I have my doubts, I still am more than willing to listen. At least, I intend to leave the snide remarks out of it. Does that make sense, Kathy?


    • Upspince

      During the onset and development of the alleged appearance of the Covid19 disease, certain anthroposophic brothers reported, on various sites and Internet accounts on social networks, about a few words from Master Steiner regarding what determines, easily or not, the harmful action of germs.

      It all boils down, in Steiner’s words, to monitoring the outbreaks of fear and the sensations linked to giving germs a somatic reality.

      However, we are not currently dealing with mere suggestions, but it is radically true that what is sought is to overcome all mental resistance to the control facilitated by the presence of the virus.

      However, books have been written, in all areas of “spiritual help”. They are “redemptorist” books. Those who write here know them and have interestingly discussed what those books try to solve within a basically spiritual categorization. Such books are intended to place Covid on the basis of a “new challenge” for humanity that, it is assumed, has already faced others. However, and this does not have to be a cause for scandal, there is no specific virus in the earth’s atmosphere to give us some “challenge” and the name of Covid19.

      Fear runs through the blood of society. This is certainly the case and the most important thing about this part of my comment.

      On Nazism in Rudolf Steiner. It is interesting to note how, the people in charge of such nonsense about Steiner, conveniently pass over the meaning of Nazism: National-SOCIALISM.

      A conviction of Anthroposophy concerning the old “group life” and collective, necessary for a type of human coexistence that has long since passed away, has just been mentioned here.

      Rudolf Steiner is the teacher par excellence of a way of understanding the new human coexistence under the auspices of the wisely understood individuality.

      Kathy, let’s compare what nationalist socialism, rooted in the old-fashioned collectivist coexistence, advocates: a savage communitarianism to which today, an out-of-date institution like the Catholic Church, lends as much doctrinal help as possible. The success of State collectivism cannot be understood without the Liberation Theology created by the Society of Jesus.

      Let’s think about the following. Anthroposophy should reflect only the before and after of the human form of coexistence, leaving the conclusions in the internal forum of each person. This is individuality correctly brought to life! You only need to enter the Catholic universities of the world to see how calm Jesuits are about the decades it has taken to train human society in the ideas that force individuals to assume things contrary to human will.

      Modern National Socialism, Jesuit from head to toe, which we are all already living in spite of ourselves, is going to disguise, through its educators, the nature of Nazism, because they know perfectly well that State collectivism has never been possible without a model like the one commanded militarily by Hitler —a Catholic socialist, let’s put it bluntly. Now, going against these things puts us in front of people who accuse us of not being “supportive.” Look at how well the jesuits have done in the universities. One is seen as an enemy of society if one opposes brutal collectivism!

      The representatives of the systematic collectivism into which we are being introduced today thanks to widespread fear, will present National Socialism to us only as a plain “fascist” monster, and not as what it really is: a religious machine allied with the socialism of the political State.

      Of course, the people who write such nonsense about Steiner don’t do it for free. It is very difficult for those writers to get people to swallow these things about Steiner without hiding the truth about the collectivism with which they deceived and brought all of Germany to its knees. No sane person would say those things about Steiner without a of money involved.


      • kathyfinnegan

        Upspince,1) Covid 19 is not an “alleged” disease. I’d offer you a hands-on tour through the facilities where I work if I could. 2) Steiner differentiates germ-related diseases from a virus and connects virus/epidemics with group karma. From several things you have written about the future, I think you may be anticipating such effects. 3) I am sorry if I mislead you that I am interested in the definition of National Socialism. I wanted a reference in Steiner’s work connecting initiates with genetic advances of a root race.


        • Upspince

          The time I have to expose certain references here requires that I only communicate them in one way. I will say what is necessary and each one, on his own account, will find the answers expanded if he does not conform and begs his own being to give them to him.

          What you cross-examine, Kathy, has already been answered. Not absolutely, because in these matters absolute affirmations and denials distort things, but in terms of their concerns I notice what many anthroposophists and spiritualists do: a desire to cover a lot without digesting anything. They find everything insufficient, vague, contradictory, limited.

          On the other hand, you have lived a lot, as you tell us, and with several strong experiences to know that material life has, like spiritual life, its own teachings. Why not learn from everyday life?

          One of the teachings of material life within the cells that cover the actions of the soul (the human body) tells us that, sometimes, the questions we ask ourselves about the difficulties of existence have their reason for being in the mystery itself of the life. I try to convey something that you can teach us all here: Life is like that … and nothing else. Sometimes it is better to give way to the nature of life, full of troubles.

          Forgive me. I’m not saying these things to teach you anything you don’t know. You already know. I only point out that aspect of life that, those interested in spiritual science, should not forget, for the health of his mind and heart. It is impossible to walk on any course if some conformity with the essence of material life is not obtained; she is the way she is and we can’t do anything more about it.

          With regard to COVID19, I understand that for you the truth does not matter as much as the selfless effort that you can give from a research laboratory to future patients, no matter the political condition or the social context in which this help is required of us. I admire that selfless responsiveness. I would add that it is quite difficult for those professionals who have been implicated in the backstage forged by the powers behind the WHO and the media, to get to immediately discover the heart of the farce that characterizes COVID19. At this point, it is not my task to be overly demonstrative beyond offering plausible references. On many occasions life asks us to be patient and allow time to give us the reason or prove our mistake.

          What Steiner infers about germ-borne illnesses and group karma illnesses has nothing to do with anything like the COVID19. As well as it will not tell us anything, to you or to me, if you could give me a tour of the facilities where you work. Will reveal nothing of the intentions that led its creators to manufacture, above all, not a fantastic virus, but a fear that shelters us all.

          Dear Kathy, we must know more about Esotericism than about bio-molecular science if we wish to enter our investigation into such matters.

          Do you want a reference that connects Initiates with the genetic advancements of a Root Race? Well, he has Moses. Read Deuteronomy and what, within the Lunar Evolution, Jehovah, its ruler, still holds for the Root Races whose degeneration in various directions turns the members of a Race upside down. The mysteries of Karma have a biogenetic hold that I cannot develop in this place and at this time.

          In any case, Moses is the Initiate in charge of watching, under the hidden aspect of the Ten Commandments, all that, biologically, he needs to proceed from a Root Race that dies and another that begins.

          I’m going to break my stealth with this:

          The darkest degradations linked to sexual enjoyment and procreation attract, in a certain way (since it is not the only factor of change) that volcanic lava is about to swallow entire cities. In fact, the sexual degeneration as cleverly conducted as it is now is an attack on hidden aspects within the Decalogue.

          The cultures that make up the Root Races that appeared during and after the first materially visible Race, Lemuria, share this genetic code under different treatises of “laws” of social coexistence. Treaties of moral coexistence such as that of Hammurabi and others share a common core, that is, the protection of what makes it possible for human beings in extreme latitudes of the globe to become familiar in different ways. This is the job of genetics.

          I will explain it better. That a human being steals is frowned upon in practically every cultural latitude in history. If he kills another man, the perpetrator can suffer similar legal penalties because the people of this planet have readily assumed that killing a person intentionally is a crime, period. If he takes a woman who does not correspond to him, the jealous reaction of the family community indicates what this innate code (atavistic, Steiner would say), has regulated since time immemorial.

          Everything is, in the form of a simple summary, integrated into the oldest legal codes. You will never see an Initiate break these codes. I have described some of the reasons although they are not all.

          I cannot speak now of modern legal codes. However, something like the Law of Talion, or the hidden effects of that law, remain what they are: realities that certainly do not occur as external acts of violence permitted by the modern “civilized” state full of rights for everything.

          But here is central idea: Human genes are the true recipients of previous actions such as those described, and it is possible that none of us remember them! A crime can go unpunished, socialy speaking. The Law of Talion, an invisible law, will never leave you unpunished. Reincarnation, or doctrine, can give us such examples by the thousands.

          There is no doubt that certain social necessity and the wrong guidance of certain minor Initiates of antiquity, tended to literalize the interpretation of the savage “punishments” found in Deuteronomy. However, the Mosaic staging, in a brutal way it must be admitted, points out the moral irregularities as blows to the biological entity protected by the Prophet (it is said, the most powerful Initiate next to Jesus of Nazareth; he has reincarnated as Mani and as Moses) . The almost graphic violence of the punishments of Deuteronomy reflect the seriousness of these profound violations of the genetic code from morality, with direct penalties on the person and their descendants. The ‘descendants’ here refer to the “next reincarnations” of the offender.

          “God” in Deuteronomy is nothing other than the Law of Karma in action. Stoning stones are not necessarily physical stones. And we could go on for much longer.

          Deuteronomy must be read under the aegis of how the Common Cosmic Christ secretly orders things at the level of genetics. Reading Deuteronomy is not the same as the Book of Kings or Isaiah.

          I wrote it down recently: Treaties of moral coexistence such as Hammurabi’s and other widely accepted ancient codes, share a common core: the protection of what makes it possible for human beings in extreme latitudes of the globe to unite materially and spiritually, that is, genetics.

          Biblically and esoterically an “ark of salvation” needs to emerge, of course, as a response to contain the danger that looms over a Race if its genetics are harnessed to supply pseudo-cultural fantasies.

          Genetic secrets have their esoteric crucible in the Holy Spirit —I am not referring to the “holy spirit” that sanctions certain ecclesiastical whims that arose in the old synods and councils of history.. The Holy Spirit projects the creational life from its womb and let us remember the sentence of Our Lord: All sin is forgiven, except those that are against the Holy Spirit.

          Does this all sound familiar? I know it sounds familiar to a few siblings here.

          Any irregularity placed with the purpose of reversing the genetic codes (hidden in the legal treatises of the oldest antiquity), is a terrible obstacle that humanity places between spirit and matter.

          The consequences are only overcome after a great cataclysm and after thousands of years in which fire, earth and water have discarded the evil produced by the mentioned causes.

          The Bible has suffered many distortions, as many or greater than the Koran.

          I bring here the teaching of an Initiate on the Law: The breach of the law does not exempt the punishment of him. Everyone who innocently sins is innocently condemned; but condemned.


          • Steve Hale

            You wrote: “I bring here the teaching of an Initiate on the Law: The breach of the law does not exempt the punishment of him. Everyone who innocently sins is innocently condemned; but condemned.”

            At the beginning of life in Kamaloka a very significant experience comes to every individual. In the case of most Europeans or, speaking generally, of people belonging to modern civilisation, this experience takes the following form. — At the beginning of life in Kamaloka a spiritual Individuality shows us everything we have done out of selfish motives in the last life, shows us a kind of register of all our transgressions. The more concretely you picture this experience, the better. At the beginning of the Kamaloka period it is actually as though a figure were presenting us with the register of our physical life. The important fact — for which, naturally, there can be no further proof because it can be confirmed only by occult experience — is that the majority of people belonging to European civilisation recognise Moses in this figure. This fact has always been known to Rosicrucian research since the Middle Ages and in recent years it has been confirmed by very delicate investigations.


            If we bear in mind the fact that when a man of the present age who unites himself more and more deeply with the Christ Impulse passes into Kamaloka and is called to account by a figure personifying a moral force — by Moses — we shall understand how a transformation of the Moses-figure can be brought about. For what does Moses show us when he confronts us with the register of our sins and transgressions? He shows us what stands on the debit side of our Karma. For a soul of our epoch it is of great significance that through the inspiration of Buddha the doctrine of Karma can be comprehended, but that the reality of the working of Karma after death is revealed to us by the Old Testament figure of Moses.

            As the influences of the super-sensible Christ pervade the souls of men to an ever-increasing extent, the figure of Moses will be transformed after death into that of Christ Jesus. This means that our Karma is linked with Christ, that Christ unites with our Karma.



            • Upspince

              Jeremy wondered, due to the suggestive name under which I present my contributions, what should be updated in Anthroposophy.

              Now I have the opportunity, and I would like to answer Jeremy’s question regarding what things should be updated.

              I hope the answer comes from the things we see in virtual spaces like these. At least for me and maybe for others, the Internet has become, although not completely, a place to exchange ideas, thoughts and hold exchanges on many relevant circumstances. If one is attentive to seeing these circumstances, even the Internet, or what we do there, it can offer us good opportunities to dialogue beyond the symbols that we type.

              Steve Hale presents us, with this classic way of responding, the anachronistic attitude of the anthroposophist that, given the opportunity, it would be urgent to update.

              The retardatory anachronism of which I am going to speak should not be seen as such in the words of Rudolf Steiner, noted in the quote that Steve brings us.

              You have to ask him: Steve, what is the anthroposophic effort you have put into the simple act of bringing us a date? Obviously none.

              Selecting a few paragraphs and pasting them to respond to a contribution whose content has not been constructed in that way is the symptom of someone’s lack of effort, whatever mental, to determine ideas that have arisen, in fact, from an effort other than intellectual effort. Our effort must not take off from a polarized belief that today is killing the investigative capacity of society: to give up all our investigative energy to be spent by the intellectual center. The human machine has several centers, inactive for now, but known to all. Above the human machine there is Inspired Thought and Higher Emotion. With these centers active when one needs them, the sentimentalism falsely called “empathic feeling” ends and the mental wanderings falsely called in the spiritual centers “magical thinking”, end.

              Now I must argue the assumptions on which I base my questioning of our anthroposophical brother.

              The ways of the Initiates to communicate a teaching during the time in which it physically manifests its Knowledge, must age. I know that such a statement does not like in the anthroposophical media. The continuous resurrection of the old ways fosters the external “institutionality” of Anthroposophy. First the Goetheanum will collapse and, not even then, will anthroposophists notice that there is something unusual, or out of focus, in their way of instructing the few people that still listen to them.

              In fact, and I must affirm it here: The old anthroposophic forms need to grow old. First of all, all those interested in Anthroposophy should repeat it, as when children learn the first words of a lesson that they do not like:

              “The old anthroposophic forms must disappear.”

              Followers of the doctrinal background, who inevitably always end up staying with the form, sincere followers of the anthroposophical background need to prepare to allow many forms adopted by this wonderful doctrine to disappear.

              Nobody has said that a doctrine can only be manifested within formalities imposed by the supposed “moral” heirs of a Master who has temporarily abandoned his physical body. It is not safe, as a material circumstance, such a thing as the right to preserve the old ways by moral heirs. Ensuring the renewal of the ways of expressing Anthroposophy should have been the main task of anthroposophists since the end of March 1925. It was not only an abstract task, the thought that fights against an Ahriman who has always lived, really, in the intellect of men —and today more than ever it lives in the intellects of all equally. The responsibility to enrich the theory, regardless of the facade of the formalities, while humanity overcame the devastating effects of the First World War, had to be done, and was not done. There arose, as everyone here knows, tributes and interpretations about what possibly the Master would have wanted. The worldly adoration of Steiner, of his students, continued as a sentimental “task” that would make us forget that persons are persons, and are surpassed.

              Within a reasonable natural process, there are certain ways of teaching that, through an exhaustion of the formal utility registered by the listeners, contribute to specific moments or segments of time that society must go through. Therefore, it is always considered beneficial for humanity to recast and transform the old forms of the language of Spiritual Knowledge so that the essence is transmitted again almost intact and not lost in mere intellectual discussions.

              In anthroposophic circles these discussions are held, most of the time, with mutual respect and admiration, although this attitude has achieved nothing by reversing what they are: purely intellectual discussions on track in the old formulations and events of a bygone era.

              When the work of recreating or updating the words of a Master is put aside by the material followers of his doctrine, they usually do not realize a truth.

              The inability of the group leaders to see the dislocation and its main consequences is a sign that it depends only on the new time and the new bodily returns of those responsible for this update. I am not speaking for myself, but about the work that someone else, in my place, would have to face. It would be very hard and difficult to deal with loving, kind, respectful people but closed to change! An esoteric instructor said that all that the Old Testament Book of Exodus does not show is the suffering of the Initiate Moses for the “stubbornness” of God’s chosen people. He met with people who knew of the power of the Initiate, of his miracles, of his conviction and of his actions to rescue him. Many were respectable people, others not so much and there were lesser Initiates than Moses. And Moses had to count on the support of all of them to deliver his People to the Manu Vaivasvata and arrive, with him, in the Promised Land (the Fourth Root Race, the new Atlantis). Moses frequently asked for physical death as he “was fed up with the stubbornness” of the people who were supposed to believe in the Prophet.

              I want to explain here that calls for actualization do not necessarily recite on people close to the last reincarnation of an Initiate, whose formulations are now being recast.

              The closeness with the dead forms of a pedagogy is not a definitive sign of some immediate reincarnation near the physical presence with a certain Teacher. The indicated people, and more during the imminent end of a Root Race, are tracked in the physical world for a type of compatibility that I am not going to explain at this time.

              If one has known, up close, in several existences, something of the essence of a spiritual truth taught by Masters, he will not be afraid to damage Knowledge as long as the informative task at this moment is not limited to tracing the old ways of the form. Proceeding in this way with the theoretical doctrine is extremely harmful, because with Spiritual Science everything begins, for practically all those interested, with the written or spoken doctrine that is provided within a delineated and delimited predefined space of time, in this case: 1900 – 1925.

              When our approach consists of weak reflections of the old ways, without impregnating them with the circumstantially new, people will obviously listen to us, perhaps with great joy; Such people are going to thank us for the sheer number of old quotes and for our strenuous effort to find them. However, when the old forms of language and the past events that enveloped them cease to offer anything else, then it is the end of serious schools, the end of respectable societies, and the beginning of mere clubs of intellectuals.

              In this way, anachronism is served by passing off the ancient doctrinal formality as useful in times very different from those of its original formulation.

              Yes, many are possessed of zeal and fear to preserve the bottom of a truth; but they forget that many of those truths are covered in conceptual forms created, like all human things, to withstand only part of the time. Well, to be honest, they don’t forget; they are fascinated, like children with their candies, by the methodical majesty achieved by an Initiate who speaks for the time in which this rigor was permitted.

              With the spirit, formality needs to take a back seat. But here, in anthroposophical circles, under the justification of preserving the background of a truth, many do not even want to change the order of the words in which they make up the old disused concepts. This is the sign that exemplifies, in verifiable facts, dear brothers, that the cultivation of the form is never a guarantee of the preservation of the fund.

              After all that is happening, after humanity has left human evolution in the hands of an apocalyptic being, one wonders how the Society or the Anthroposophical Movement can still survive without having resolved the underlying incompatibility between formal Steinerism and fund sought by Anthroposophy —a cultivation of free thought and the spirit of this world.

              The anthroposophic effort is incompatible with Steinerism.

              Many are perplexed with the gifts of Initiate Rudolf Steiner. Hence his path throughout the 20th century has been predictable. They follow the Rudolf Steiner personality, not Anthroposophy. Rudolf Steiner, as a human personality, no longer exists. Anthroposophy, as an effort of the spirit and free thought, still exists; This is the legacy of the Inner Master and it resurrects, in some way, when those who claim to be anthroposophists allow it.

              How long will the followers of Steiner continue to resist coating the enormous anthroposophic background with the new impulses that are about to bring about the final outcome of the Fifth Root Race? The fact that they are impulses for the end of the Root Race does not make them a cause for fear, but quite the opposite: they are the most enriched impulses throughout humanity’s transit through planet Earth in the last 25,000 or 26,000 years.

              I have allowed to see only a minute of what these new impulses have for us and what I receive in response is a reaction of the purest Steinerism, paradoxically, and as I have tried to convey, the ‘usurper’ of the place that true Anthroposophy deserves.


              • Steve Hale

                What I quoted is not an anachronism for the simple reason that it is a living truth, and a matter of experience in reality. I did not go hunting for this rather singular reference to Moses, and Who takes the Book of Transgressions from him. It appeared as an entirely natural response to your assertions about karma and condemnation, no matter what. Christ is the new Lord of Karma for a very big reason, and it has a great deal to do with the original Luciferic infiltration that enabled Lucifer to be the first Lord of Karma for so long a period of time, and certainly throughout the descending evolution contained within the books of the Old Testament. The replacement of Moses by Joshua was a necessity owing to the critical nature of the time, and because Joshua bore a copy of the astral body of Zarathustra. Now, this fact has never been asserted by anyone because it is based on original spiritual-scientific research, and therefore not an anachronism by any means.

                But, I understand what you are getting at; Anthro’s just throw up Steiner-saids and they feel that it covers everything without any original and creative thinking. What I quoted was meant to make a specific impression that says a great deal about the way things are since Christ. Kamaloca is experienced differently since the advent of Christ, and with the Second Coming, even more so is the dissolving of past karma made something that Christ is with us as a close companion. Yet, Christ has to be experienced in life, and this is now possible through Spiritual Science.

                If you are here to update anthroposophy from certain anachronistic tendencies, then I am very enthused about that. In truth, Spiritual Science has long been waiting for this to take place. The major thing that needs to be emphasized is the trinitarian nature of the science of the spirit. As such, Anthroposophy is the lowest of the three constituencies involved here. Thus, standing above anthroposophy are the two aspects of: Psychosophy, and Pneumatosophy. I see that you only refer to Anthroposophy, which if left as the sole developmental influence, will certainly lead to tendencies already seen and felt; the limited path of an obscure and anachronistic science which would do much better if it was actually lived.

                Liked by 1 person

                • Upspince

                  Steve, to more properly explain what the stubbornness of Steinerism consists of, I will return to the central idea of ​​the question.

                  We know that a piece of the Canonical Gospel of Our Lord, even adding, at the time of citing it, all the possible historical versions available of the evangelical translation from one language to another, does not make it a living truth. It is not that your private experiences with the spirit have to be permanently present in the discussions. Rather, it is about how certain habits are more a reflection of a rigid routine than a practice with concepts. The concepts have been so respected in Anthroposophy that they have not given a deep breath to those interested in learning something to take to their soul and not just their brain.

                  Steve, anthroposophists sometimes sound more like a theologians authorized by the Vulgate to offer the Steinerite truth without giving us the own vital experience on Anthroposophy. For my part, I am not talking about rational thoughts but about living experiences through being and person.

                  I offer my apologies, I do not want you to believe that I do not respect the importance of an orderly thought aimed at consciously collaborating with the world. However, for this dialogue to go anywhere, I ask you not to assume for now where I want to go.

                  You agree with me, I thank you, but when you agree with me, I observe that, obviously, you are doing it on different bases than those I use.

                  Even if one abandons Steinerism or Textual Evangelism to explain living and changing realities, an acceptance of experience based on the reality of another other than “my being in soul and my person” cannot be translated as a reality that belongs to me. Esoterically, such an assumption is incorrect or definitely wrong. Nor am I suggesting that the porticoes of invisible reality lend themselves to each, according to his whim, coining cosmic orders to transfer or change spiritual reality without further ado.

                  If you read my comment carefully, I said that the anachronism was not to be detected in the words of Steiner quoted by you. You are putting here when writing your answer the opposite meaning of those words.

                  The lines regarding Lucifer, Christ and Karma we would have to elucidate in another context and I think that this is not the time to do it.

                  I will stick to the maxim of a Master about the deep reality of Christ and Lucifer: “If our gratuitous enemies knew the truth behind these things, they would become more fierce enemies. It is the fate of us Christians, to be branded as satanic by the children of Satan”.

                  The main saboteurs of a mission of the spirit live hidden within us. Rudolf Steiner, the person, left a will as has been said here, a norm of coexistence for the community, a reformed institution, and the enemies I refer to remained in the very soul of his students without being discovered. This is a brutal truth that facilitated the entry of the enemies of Anthroposophy to the table where the Master would eat.

                  Satan describes different things than what fits within the name Lucifer. It is not the same, because it is not the same, common karma than Higher Karma.

                  Rudolf Steiner was speaking for audiences trained in a Christianity that gave rise to the suggestion of approximate meanings. The “karma” in Steiner’s teachings is not really just plain karma, but a type of Higher Karma for Initiates. Steiner seldom speaks of people who have not been Initiated. Hence the confusion of anthroposophists. Humanity is not Initiated, only some men and women are. Everything that speaks of supersensible bodies, of powers, of destiny and of the future, of the Representative of Humanity is for Initiates or people willing to hear it and interpret it according to the future tense —of Steiner’s future.

                  The squares and compasses do not measure in the same way in the ordinary human being and in the Initiates. Do anthroposophists know that only Initiates possess supersensible bodies and that ordinary human beings only possess ghosts of those bodies? Obviously, out of compassion for the Most High, we perceive, thanks to his Mercy, one thousandth of what the bodies of Initiates do for Evolution, thanks to Anthroposophy, but not only thanks to Anthroposophy.

                  The “copies” of the bodies of the Masters who lead the Evolution is a truly sacred subject. Bodies are pristine and too enigmatic conduits through which it is possible to transmit the wisdom of the ages, but they appear, in anthroposophical language, as if they were “loans” from High Initiates to other Initiates.

                  When speaking of the successive incarnations of the Masters, it is frequent that a sage like Steiner, and other Initiates, distinguish them as if, from the transferences, the main carriers of the bodies were beings different from themselves when transferring them to others. Initiates.

                  Certainly there are Initiates different from each other.

                  Apart from the Seven emissaries of the Seven Superior Logos, or those that in the West we call the Seven Angels of the Apocalypse, there are sacred entities, and a triad of Masters that represent the three forces of the Universe known to us. Above them, however, is the Master Jesus the Christ, who attracted nothing less than the Nameless Be-ness (not simple divinity), the I Am of the Solar System. Before Jesus, that Be-ness had reached the pages of the Pentateuch as the One without a Name, in Moses. This Be-ness is not allowed to worship by images. What is sacred in the Old Testament should not be understood as “downward evolution.” If Steiner did not refer you, I have shared one of the reasons for not doing so.

                  Above all this plethora of Initiates is a chief, under whose tutelage Jesus himself was also raised in the Secret Egypt of two thousand years ago; he is the Head of the College of Initiates of Planet Earth. And there are others; not all born or initiated in our world. In reality, our humanity is not originally from here, and the Primitive Masters who gave us the terrestrial being are not from here either.

                  Steiner had presented Moses and Manes as if they were two different subjects or beings, but we have information that they are the same Being. Making a slight comparison, there are several Zarathustras, as many as Cleopatras in history. There was not a single Zarathustra or a single Cleopatra. Jesus is an initiatory degree and is the name, unique in this case, that identifies the “savior” of his own Initiation: Jeshua ben Pandira, which when translated means: The savior, son of the panther. It is not a simple name of people of the desert. The panther is black and lives, like Lucifer, in the evangelical desert. That is why he said that, to reveal certain delicate points of the mysteries, the first to throw the first stone will always be close to the teacher.

                  When the past incarnation is greater than the next, from the mission field, the incarnated aspect in the new body of the Initiate is able to kneel before the greater aspect that preceded it. To exemplify, the last physical incarnation of Manes only admitted to having been, at some time, a disciple of Hermes Trismegistus: and he missed adding Judas, Socrates and possibly Confucius. These beings have never been interested in clarifying anything about themselves or their missions. They are affairs, as Steiner used to repeat, for High Initiates.

                  The mystery of the bodies under “loan” is very high and does not reveal, as it is presented in Anthroposophy, nothing more than the crude mystery.

                  Christ must be experienced in life? It’s true. The mystery and principle of Jesus is an esoteric part of that life experience. However, the experience of Christ is exclusive to an awakened conscience.

                  In spiritual science we say: the awakened conscience belongs to the one who, first, has become Jesus, the Savior of the Christ; that is why we know that the historical Jesus was not a little boy when he had to flee to Egypt. The esoteric name of that Initiate, according to the Gospel, was “Joseph” and the staff had “flowered” in him. He was married and ran away with his wife. He was 53 years old. Upon being crucified, he leaves his body at the age of 56. Herod, the historical king, was not looking for any child, but for the Initiate to kill what, during the secret baptism by the mighty John the Baptist had descended on Jeshua Ben Pandirá.

                  The trinity is in the human being.


                  • Upspince

                    I am grateful to Jeremy for the opportunity to contribute. I don’t want to divert attention to matters not suggested in the original post. For now, I’m going to stop commenting.


                    • Steve Hale

                      How convenient, and yet weren’t you the one diverting the attention to your own swing? All that effort, and you have nothing more to say. Get real.
                      We need to work together, and spiritual science is the plan. I know of many people who think that Steiner had a higher logos working above him, and this is how you speak. Yet, Steiner spoke soul, which is a very much needed warming element, and you speak a kind of pragmatical argument. As such, Steiner said: Beware the discussion because it only leads to argumentation, and the inevitable ad infinitum demand for proofs. We stand on our own merits, which is the science of the spirit, which has been rigorously analyzed and proven.

                      I knew your nonsense about the Solomon father would cause you to crack. Try reading the lectures in GA 117 for what is contained about the father and the little boy. They both would gain what they needed, and then would return to Israel, but the father received another presentiment which told him to veer off from Bethlehem, and go to Nazareth instead. Thus, the two boys lived together as neighbors for about 9 or 10 years.


                  • Steve Hale

                    Amongst your many ruminations, I find this most noteworthy for comment:

                    “In spiritual science we say: the awakened conscience belongs to the one who, first, has become Jesus, the Savior of the Christ; that is why we know that the historical Jesus was not a little boy when he had to flee to Egypt. The esoteric name of that Initiate, according to the Gospel, was “Joseph” and the staff had “flowered” in him. He was married and ran away with his wife. He was 53 years old. Upon being crucified, he leaves his body at the age of 56. Herod, the historical king, was not looking for any child, but for the Initiate to kill what, during the secret baptism by the mighty John the Baptist had descended on Jeshua Ben Pandirá.”

                    There were actually two boys with the name, Jesus. The child who lived in Bethlehem, and identified with the Solomon line of the house of David, was taken to Egypt when he was about two years old because his father, Joseph, had dreams that told him to do so. What is not generally known about this Joseph, in favor of the more well-known carpenter of the same name, is that he is the reincarnated Joseph, 11th son of Jacob, who was taken into Egypt by his jealous half-brothers, and eventually became the visier of the Pharaoh.

                    Thus, when Joseph took his wife and son into Egypt for a period of time in order to escape the slaughter of Herod, it was to accomplish two objectives. Each had a prior history involving Egypt. The child, being the incarnation of Zarathustra, needed to retrieve the etheric and astral bodies previously given to Moses and Hermes, and the father needed to experience again when he had been kidnapped and sold to the Pharaoh, and eventually became the Lord Governor of Egypt described in the late chapters of Genesis.

                    Rudolf Steiner describes this reason for going to Egypt in two places in GA 117. The first is from November 9, 1909, and the second from December 7, 1909. Your rationale from above is not to be found here at all, which makes me wonder about your sources.

                    With you, I get the sense that you are always standing above on a higher level, like with the Elder Brothers of Humanity. This is the effect that one can get when they immerse themselves, for example, in the work of Alice Bailey, who was the American successor to HPB in the 20th century. She channeled a higher being of the so-called “Mahatmas”, much in the same way that Blavatsky was the medium for Koot Humi. That is why I mentioned Max Heindel, who went to Germany in 1907 in order to follow Steiner’s course in “Rosicrucian Theosophy”, and then came back to America in order to plagiarize it for himself, claiming that he was actually inspired by the Elder Brotherhood of the Carpathians, which links with the Himalaya range of Shamballa.

                    Steiner indicated a kind of unfortunate fate for Heindel in his lectures on The Fifth Gospel, GA 148, and this did in fact take place when Heindel died in January 1919. In November of 1919 is when Alice Bailey began her relationship with Djwal Khul, the Tibetan. Together, over some thirty years of collaboration, they produced 24 works on behalf of the Lucis Trust, until her death in 1949.

                    So, again, I hope that your are listening when we consider the full scope of what Spiritual Science means for the world. As such, Consciousness is threefold, and consists in the simultaneous presence of: Past, Present, and Future. In other words, Anthroposophy, Psychosophy, and Pneumatosophy. Steiner makes this his clear objective in these lectures from GA 115, which began in October 1909 and continued until December 1911.

                    I am hoping for more good discussion on how we can update anthroposophy for the future, which is now, and bring forth the higher vibrations needed for the 6th cultural epoch. The trend is here.


                    • Kyle J

                      Hi, Steve. A bit of a late reply to your posts earlier – perhaps a week or so ago, but hopefully it’s fitting to comment amid this spirited discussion. What I find very relevant as to where we are now, is exactly this Parsifal attitude one must acquire. With the risk of paraphrasing incorrectly, what Upspince is aiming at, is the dire necessity to achieve Initiate wisdom and without it, we fall short of grasping any essence of true spiritual science. My understanding in plain english (and please, this is for anyone to clarify and elaborate on), is since the Mystery of Golgatha, mankind has the opportunity to achieve higher levels of wisdom with proper ‘will’ applied. To be clear, you have to have faith that Christ is in the etheric and is for anyone to witness who chooses to. Not as simple as it sounds, but, not as difficult to achieve higher understanding as it was ‘prior’ to the event of Christ’s incarnation. Prior to the incarnation was place and importance of mystery schools.

                      The whole idea of Anthroposophy seems to be to step away from the mystery schools and the emancipation of higher knowledge for the common folk. Isn’t that why Anthroposophy exists, to share this knowledge and how to attain it with all, not just a few? Now, the Parsifal attitude – which I find a very fitting, and very important – is not only for the few, rare, or chosen. Sure, perhaps it may be rare, but all it takes is the honest, humble, meek, and willing to discover truth, that grail consciousness. Knowing that Christ is on your side and wants you to see ‘Him,’ should be the prerequisite for anyone wishing to move forward to the next cultural epoch (the 6th). To summarise, moving forward isn’t only meant for Initiates, but for anyone who consciously wishes it. The present day difficulties are not in who have memorised the most from sacred texts, or read the most books… because even the most skilled and gifted mystics can be led astray. Luciferism, is rife in our present day and age just as much as Ahrimanism. New Age spirituality, old age mysticism, in my understanding is a Luciferic impulse. New Earth is a lovely term for kingdom of Man, but not God. We are (aren’t we?) preparing our souls to leave a dying Earth anyway.

                      If more people have the intention to move forward, it will be enough to move to the next stage. But the main challenge (thee challenge) is moving away from Ahrimanism (hyper materialism and intellectualism) and Lucifericism (passions and old age clairvoyance). Just my thoughts from reading the latest posts, and by no means a counter argument to any specific points made, more just adding my comments here. All the best!


                  • ‘what, during the secret baptism by the mighty John the Baptist had descended on Jeshua Ben Pandirá’. This is the theosophical version.

                    Acording to Steiner, Blavatsky described “that 105 years before our era there had lived a certain Jeschu ben Pandira, who was stoned and then hanged on a tree — who was not, therefore, crucified. Jeschu ben Pandira was now described as if he had been Jesus of Nazareth. This is a complete confusion.” (GA0133/19111023)


                    • Upspince

                      Very well. What is the definitive anthroposophic clarification on Jeshua Ben Pandira?

                      If you, dear Ton, like several of our brothers in Anthroposophy, are sure that you have received the last answers, for the rest of the millennia from Rudolf Steiner, you have reflected here another serious problem of Steinerism.

                      In the first place, under this belief disguised as conviction, you condition the rest of the esoteric brothers to the assumption that Spiritual Science does not progress and is unable to find souls who make progress in the material world. Second, this conformity sounds to the tone of music that, for nearly two thousand years, the Church composed for nearly all human beings. ‘Jesus’ had said and suffered what was necessary for us, the spiritual ones, don’t to ask again about his Mystery.

                      Given that conformity with what they think they know about the wisdom of his Master, I should not continue saying anything else.

                      Anyone will adduce something similar about Steiner, regarding the two baby Jesus. Clarify me someone, without going to Steinerismo, the real kernel kept in the mystery of those two children.

                      I want to warn that I will refrain from discussing anything that comes from Steinerism. My eyes and ears are pleased to hear anthroposophic proposals, if any, to reconcile points of view on these issues.

                      Theosophists, with whom I do not share in person, handle a type of speculation with identical roots. If it were for a simple desire to raise opinions based on sheer opposition, theosophists and other spiritualist brotherhoods would like to refute in the same way. Steiner was not a speculator, of course, but, like Blavatsky, he contradicted opinions by raising objections clearly oriented to paths opposite to her. The work of opposition was a necessity, even when the Theosophical Society and Anthroposophy had appeared, each at a certain moment, for the good of the West. Anthroposophists and Theosophists want to achieve, for decades, by drawing strong demarcation lines, that these oppositions are seen as crimes or attacks on spiritual clarity. They are not. I don’t think so, they are in no way crimes against spiritual clarity.

                      I will not tie myself, with an emotional cord, to conflicting quotes and sources. My goals don’t stay there.

                      Both Blavatsky and Steiner (on this subject and in their own way) wove pertinent reasons at a time when considering the subject of Jeshua Ben Pandirá was something extremely new in the West and the East. My way of solving these situations for you cannot be done, as I say, by tying what I know to the office of solving mental contradictions.

                      Dispassionate outlooks and beliefs crafted in less fixed molds can make it easier to answer many things.

                      Jealousy like these are the buffers that force Anthroposophy to continue living in 1925. The same happened to modern theosophy. Steiner saw him and walked away. Anthroposophists do it again with Anthroposophy but they want everyone, humanity, to give them their full attention.


                    • Well, progress is made in the scientific and scholarly field. Jeshua Ben Pandirá (Jesus in the Talmud) was a historical figure, three Messiah’s were expected (Essenes), Krishnamurti was not a Messiah (World Teacher), Herod’s year of death is still discussed (Steinmann) etc..

                      For anthroposophical criticsm, e.g. see: “Christoph Rau thus reaches the unavoidable conclusion that Rudolf Steiner’s presentation of a chronology of the two births needs revision. Further, the most recent discoveries and interpretations of Essene scrolls reveal that the Jewish sect expected not one but three Messiahs.” (google k92RDwAAQBAJ)

                      Blavatsky hated Judaism and Christianity, no ‘dispassionate outlooks’ here (cf. Steiner, The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century, GA 254).


                    • Steve Hale

                      Upspince asked:

                      “Very well. What is the definitive anthroposophic clarification on Jeshua Ben Pandira? If you, dear Ton, like several of our brothers in Anthroposophy, are sure that you have received the last answers, for the rest of the millennia from Rudolf Steiner, you have reflected here another serious problem of Steinerism.”

                      Who said anything about receiving the last answers? This is your prejudicial call, and only further indicates your agenda in achieving something that you haven’t even remotely defined as a kind of “updating of anthroposophy”. I personally described what anthroposophy needs in order to update itself, and it concerns its own threefold enterprise.

                      But, let us consider the definitive anthroposophical clarification on JbP. Ton notes a remark from GA 133 about the 105 years between JbP and the time of Jesus of Nazareth. Steiner would further elaborate this in two specific lectures given in Leipzig on November 4th and 5th, 1911, as part of GA 130. As such, we are dealing with issues involving both the Maitreya Bodhisattva of the time, and also Christian Rosenkreutz.

                      Now, let us, indeed, indicate the definitive clarification on Jeshu ben Pandira, according to anthroposophy. It is no different than blurting out that Joshua succeeded Moses and was more successful because he bore an astral copy of Zarathustra. You’ve never seen this assertion before because it is an extension of spiritual science based on its overall three-folded aspect.

                      So, let us consider JbP, or Jeshu ben Pandira, who is clearly an incarnation of the Maitreya Bodhisattva in the early years after the enlightenment of Siddhartha Gautama under the Bodhi Tree in order to become the Gautama Buddha, c. 531 BC. As the story goes, the Buddha immediately passes the tiara to his successor, which is the Maitreya incarnation. Thus, even long before Jeshu ben Pandira, we had a Bodhisattva working specifically toward the Christ Event. As well, the direct forerunner of Christ on earth was John the Baptist.

                      Yet, Steiner lays it on JbP because he was treated so badly as to be both stoned and hung on a tree just for preparing a kind of reverse 42 generations found later in the Gospel of Matthew. It was brutality to the maximum degree, and yet just consider what happened to John the Baptist. As well, Alexander the Great, who was poisoned just before going in to Babylon in order to spread the Aristotelian knowledge of nature. He was an early Bodhisattva of the Maitreya lineage.

                      This is a kind of anthroposophical clarification of what should be known by now, and why allegations of “steinerisms” exist. Of course, that is true, and why Upspince makes such an important contribution to this blog. The challenge is always to extend oneself in honor of the discipline, and this has been made possible again. So, please Upspince, don’t go away, but be a part of what this place is all about. All are welcome; welcome in the light.


  38. Also, already in the 1970’s: Samael Aun Weor [Hebrew: Light and Strength‎; 1917–1977)], born Víctor Manuel Gómez Rodríguez, was a spiritual teacher and author of over sixty books of esoteric spirituality. He taught and formed groups under the banner of “Universal Gnosticism”, or simply gnosis.


    • kathyfinnegan

      Thank you, Ton. I’m non acquainted with Weor but it seems his work borders on many threads we discuss. My more focused interest is how do you, personally, experience separateness within connectedness – or as Weor may put it: your “aggregated “I” as it functions within your personal identity?


      • tonmajoor

        Hi Kathy, ‘separateness within connectedness’ in its essence would be freedom of thought (even ‘rebellion’), but within the consensus (group-soul) of science, and without becoming a religious sect.


        • kathyfinnegan

          Thank you, Ton. You are speaking to the double-bind I feel in this earth-walk: the expectation to act in freedom – even to rebel – but within some standard of consensus. Even as a child I felt this as a fundamental contradiction. I remember thinking how confusing it was to think God expects “X” from me – but I have to let go of His hand – and risk failing/falling – to do it. And decades later an elderly minister – in response to the same issue – advised me to “Pray as though everything depends on God, but act as though everything depends on you.” I’m beginning to grasp this is part of the foundation of “Spiritual” “Science”…those two words, themselves, are the double-bind! .


        • Steve Hale

          Steiner gave a very good lecture on “How Anthroposophical Groups Prepare for the Sixth Epoch”, and what it means to connect with a group of other individuals with similar co-creative aspirations. In doing so, it immediately raises the bar from Anthroposophy to Psychosophy, which is the self-creative aspect of Spiritual Science. One is aware of being alone, and connected at the same time. As well, this lecture points the pointer in the direction of when it will be the Time of Christ. This is the whole point of spiritual science activity, which is to prepare and not bypass what stands to be the presentiment of the Spirit-Self in the next age.


      • Maverick

        Hi Kathy. I experience separateness within connectedness in our study group (A Search for God). We recognize that all group members are on what’s been called different “planes of development”, yet we have a unifying purpose, or influence, which is to “love God, as it manifests in loving our fellow being”.

        I happened upon what I’m calling a major spiritual purpose behind our current pandemic in a Cayce reading: “”7. The greater lesson, then, to be learned by the entity in this experience is PATIENCE! For in patience one becomes aware of one’s soul and of its continuity of existence, of awareness, of consciousness, in every sphere of activity. And as the promise has been in Him, and FROM Him, in patience ye become aware. And when this is not as an activative force of being still, of being quiet, not as an ACTIVE influence, one may find those impelling forces that make it aware of those influences that have impelled, do promote activity, even from the beginning.”

        He’s saying that patience is an active force, and if it isn’t present in us, as we’re seeing in our fast-paced society, then “impelling forces” that will “make us aware” of our need for it. People are being forced, if you will, to take time to be still and quiet and listen for the small voice; those who don’t heed will not be shown mercy when things become worse. People are being given an opportunity to “be still and know that I am God”; to become acquainted with the Creative Forces that have been existent “from the beginning”.


        • Maverick

          What a perfect example of the active force of patience, Kathy. I neglected to include the context of the quote I made, which was that the woman involved was doing a lot of worthwhile activities, such as fulfilling her duties at home, was involved in charities, etc., but was told that these good activities could become an obsession, if she didn’t combine them with patience. The GREATER lesson for her to learn was patience, and as you point out so well, an ACTIVE patience. I honestly can’t understand how people can learn this quality without accepting the teaching of reincarnation, or the continuity of existence. I feel that this is how the nefarious spiritual powers keep people in bondage – with the fear of death, with the implication that a soul must accomplish their soul purpose in one incarnation. Hebrews 2:14,15 in the New Testament of the Bible says exactly that – the “devil” (however you interpret that term) is keeping people in bondage “through fear of death”. Well, Steiner, Cayce and others are challenging that fear with teachings that declare it invalid, and yet people today seem to prefer to live in fear, rather than open their minds to these monumental teachings, teachings which could change our world if they would be received by an open mind. People prefer ignorance and pain – what can we say that will change that?

          Liked by 1 person

  39. kathyfinnegan

    Dear Steve and Maverick: Thank you both SO much for your posts. I’ve made copies – and of Steiner’s lecture too – so I can really work on them. They have suddenly recalled in me a memory of when my boxing match with God started. Years ago (I was an undergraduate) I suddenly developed a sharp, excruciating pain in my lower right side. I had three immediate thoughts – and in this order: it was my ovary, my appendix, or a hernia. My fourth thought was – don’t be afraid, it’s not me and won’t hurt me. I sat down, elevated my feet and prayed/meditated. I fell asleep. When I woke the pain was gone. About a week later my sister called (who was living elsewhere) and told me she had an “experience” on …(the day/time I had the pain). She was working as a banquet waitress and lifted a tray and had an unbearable pain in her lower right side. First she thought it was her ovary, then her appendix, then a hernia. She said she was frantic and asked God to take the pain away – just while she was working a wedding banquet – because there was no one to replace her. And the pain disappeared and never came back.

    After our phone call, I sat crying and, at first, felt so humbled and grateful that God let me help her. But, almost instantly I said (to God) something like: “Wait a minute! You can take the pain out of my sister and put it in me? Why didn’t you put it in the ground?- or outer space? Aren’t you GOD? What kind of mess have you created here?” And Steiner’s lecture is saying that our capacity for sharing pain is part of the fabric of development? It’s what we’re here to learn? And Cayce says patience (to endure, wait, allow) is an ACTIVE force? So I’m not being asked just to let things go – but actually do my job??? I don’t have to be mad at God anymore???

    Love you guys…Kathy

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Steve Hale

    Hi Kathy, yes I think so about this. Mav and I have been having some very interesting discussions on this very matter over on Hazel’s blog concerning the two God’s of Genesis. God the Father is beyond repute for the simple reason that He misses the “crown of His creation”, which is Humankind, made original for a divine purpose, and then set-up to experience a kind of separation owing to the Lord God. This Lord God (Jahve) is the one that you have issues with; this so-called “petulant and senile old man” who seemed to create obstacles with the Hebrews every chance he could. Yet, it can be shown that Jahve, who is the outer dimension of Christ, was working with the “light that shown in the darkness, but the darkness comprehended it not.” Thus, a huge task for a Sun Spirit to take on, having been separated from his brethren, which were the other six Elohim.

    This diagram from lecture 3 of GA 103 tells the story of how Jahve works from the night side on the human astral body. As such, and please read the associated text, his task is pure sacrifice, and this is what your essay seems to say in great measure. You and your sister must have made a great team.

    “The night belongs to the moon and it belonged to the moon to a much greater degree in that ancient time when the human being was not yet able to receive the force of love in the direct rays of the sun. At that time he received the reflected force of ripened wisdom from the moonlight. This ripened wisdom streamed down upon him from the moonlight during the time of night-consciousness. Therefore, Jahve is called the Ruler of the Night who prepared humanity for the love that was later to manifest during full waking-consciousness. Thus we can look back to that ancient past in human evolution when spiritually that event occurred which is merely symbolized by the heavenly bodies, the sun on the one side, the moon on the other. (See drawing). During the night, at certain times, the moon sends down to us the reflected force of the sun, but it is the same light which also shines upon us directly from the sun. Thus in ancient times, Jahve or Jehova reflected the force of matured wisdom, the force of the six Elohim, and sent this force down into human beings while they slept, preparing them to become capable later, by degrees, of receiving the power of love during waking-day consciousness.”


  41. kathyfinnegan

    Steve, thank you for your post. I have a question: is your description of Jahve purely from Anthrposophy or is it mixed with a variety of gnostic texts? I’ve made some peace over the years with what tore me up years ago (though the dance is never over). I regard Jahve as a lesser god playing creator God. Basically, I see him as a gang leader (of the the elohim?) who wanted total control of his “Creation” and forbade us knowledge of what we really are – and didn’t want us to be immortal like him. Because he could only create with the breathe of life of the true God – making us immortal whether he liked it or not – we had potentials that escaped him. I don’t think this fully resonates with Steiner because I recall reading S. say we had to be prevented from developing immortality prematurely – so Jahve’s restrictions were/are necessary. (something both “wrong” and “necessary” at the same time?) I have a tentative understanding of that. My current struggles have to do with the spiritual necessity for patience we’ve been discussing. I’m beginning to see that knowledge/understanding may be a necessary condition for development and joining together in our spiritual group soul – but it’s not sufficient. Active patience is also necessary. “Knowing” is one piece of the puzzle. The lecture you recommended to me says we will (in the 6th epoch) be consciously experiencing the sufferings of others as if they are our own. So empathy (a feeling quality) is equally part of our development. And this awareness brings me back to my nemesis – patience. Active patience


    • Steve Hale

      Kathy, yes my reference to Jahve is purely anthroposophical. I did a pretty thorough search through the archives, and especially found this, which I think you will like because it is utterly unique in its description. Steiner never characterized Jahve so well as this because in doing so he is saying that the essence of Jahve (Jeheve) is feminine. Later allusions to the Goddess Natura, or Gaia, and the Indian Prakriti, all come from this seminal source which says that Jahve went to the Moon as a sacrifice because Mother Earth needed to become a distinctively natural sphere, in complete reversal of its former etheric condition, which the other planets maintain to this very day.

      “When all that has come over into Earth evolution from the Saturn, Sun and Moon periods is grasped in its natural aspect, then we find it symbolised in the old Hebrew tradition through Eve. Eve — the vowels are never clearly pronounced — Eve! Add to it the sign for the divine Being of Hebrew antiquity who is the Ruler of Earth-history, and we have a form which is quite as valid as any other — Jehve-Jahve, the ruler of the Earth who has its symbol in the moon. If we bring this into conjunction with what has come over from the Moon period and with its outcome for Earth evolution, we have the Ruler of the Earth united with the Earth Mother, whose powers are a result of the Moon period … Jahve! Hence out of Hebrew antiquity there emerges this mysterious connection of the Moon forces, which have left their remains in the moon known to astronomy and their human forces in the female element in human life. The connection of the Ruler of the Earth with the Moon Mother is given to us in the name Jahve.”


    • Steve Hale

      Kathy, you wrote: “I regard Jahve as a lesser god playing creator God. Basically, I see him as a gang leader (of the elohim?) who wanted total control of his “Creation” and forbade us knowledge of what we really are …”

      I am hoping that this paragraph about the seven sun dwellers will help in possibly changing your mind about the importance of Jahve’s sacrifice in leaving the other six Elohim and going to the moon.

      “When the ancient Moon had completed its evolution, there were seven great beings of this kind who had progressed far enough to pour forth love. Here we touch upon a deep mystery which Spiritual Science reveals. In the beginning of the Earth-evolution, there was on the one side the childlike humanity which was to receive love and become ready for the reception of the ego — and on the other side there was the sun which separated from the earth and rose to a more exalted existence. Seven principle Spirits of Light, who at the same time were the dispensing Spirits of Love, were able to evolve upon this sun. Only six of them, however, made the sun their dwelling-place and what streams down to us in the physical light of the sun contains within it the spiritual force of love from these six Spirits of Light or, as they are called in the Bible, the six Elohim. One separated from the others and took a different path for the salvation of humanity. He did not choose the sun but the moon for his abode. And this Spirit of Light, who voluntarily renounced life upon the sun and chose the moon instead, is none other than the one whom the Old Testament calls “Jahve” or “Jehova.” This Spirit of Light who chose the moon as a dwelling-place is the one who from there pours ripened wisdom down upon the earth, thus preparing the way for love.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Maverick

        Thanks Steve for this reference – this is a great sacrifice that we can be grateful for, along with the sacrifices that the other six make in order to keep us warm and healthy with the physical rays of the Sun that we enjoy so much.

        This isn’t to detract from the point you make – I merely feel the need to add something. Recently I had the privilege of reading a book called The Name, by Mark Sameth. In it, I learned a lot about the Name of God, which has been termed the “unmentionable Name” by some Jewish leaders, and which is the 4-letter name, YHWH. English texts, and even German ones it seems, have been translating this Name as Jehovah, or Jahve, or Yahweh. It turns out we’ve been translating this wrong for centuries, and of course it was never contested by Jewish leaders, because it only kept us confused about its actual meaning. We’ve been reading it from left to right (Y-H-W-H), which is our standard way of reading/writing, but the scrolls on which the Name appears were read from right to left (H-W-H-Y), which changes everything. When translated to English correctly, it become Hu-Hi, which becomes He/She. This clears up then, why in Genesis, when Elohim creates man in Their image (Elohim is a plural Name), they’re created as male/female, in one person (they were later separated – see Steiner’s excellent lecture on The Division into Sexes). That God, as we commonly call Them, is both He/She, explains why some modern scholars and students will include both by saying Father God/Mother God, or something similar. This book I mentioned is a scholarly look at the history of this 4-letter Name, and I hope will enlighten many to a truth that our patriarchal society has long wanted us NOT to discover. As an example of this fact, the book mentions a Vatican librarian, an amazing scholar who, in the 1800’s, uncovered this truth and started to make it known, until he was removed from his position and from the list of Vatican librarians and forced not to speak of it any more. It did not go over well with a patriarchal system like the Roman Catholic church. I hope that we can turn this around and stop mistranslating the Name, and re-balance the system it’s supported for too many years into one that is both matriarchal and patriarchal, together.


        • Steve Hale

          Yes, Jahve, or better Jeheve, is that aspect of the seven-fold Elohim, which remained individual for the purpose of going to the moon as an entirely feminine aspect of the overall Sun-Spirit. Thus, it becomes that Earth gains the wisdom, or natura element. The remaining six Elohim, in the absence of the seventh, amalgamate together in order to form Christ. And, as such, Christ enters at the end of the outside-in period depicted in that diagram. Good stuff.


          • Steve Hale

            I think it is important to distinguish here where you say:
            “This clears up then, why in Genesis, when Elohim creates man in Their image (Elohim is a plural Name), they’re created as male/female, in one person (they were later separated – see Steiner’s excellent lecture on The Division into Sexes). That God, as we commonly call Them, is both He/She, explains why some modern scholars and students will include both by saying Father God/Mother God, or something similar.”

            God is not an Elohim, but rather, the ground of the Universal coming into Being. Thus, God is the Root element: “For the Father Spirit of the Heights Doth Reign in the Depths of the World Begetting Being”, ref. FSM, v.1

            When God says in verse 26, Chapter 1 of Genesis: “Let Us make Man in Our Image and according to Our Likeness”, It is referring to the Hierarchies, and not the Elohim. Thus, it is the Hierarchical Spirits that God is invoking in this original coming into being. The Elohim, or Sun-Spirits, did not form until the Ancient Moon evolution. They were originally high-achieving Archai spirits working on this Old Moon phase for a specific purpose. Of course, it involved the Sun, and these high-achievers were exalted for what they did. Thus, Elohim is a very special class of spiritual beings.

            The scripture of Genesis makes this very clear in the distinction between the God of chapter one, and the LORD God of chapter two, and all the following chapters. Jehova’s Witnesses pride themselves on counting some 6000 references to the Lord God in the Old Testament, but they still confuse this with God, the Most High; the One who started it all.


            • Maverick

              Just looked it up again Steve, and the word translated God in Genesis 1:26 is indeed “Elohim” in the Hebrew. Yes, the “Lord God” is used mostly from this point on, but Elohim also shows up in combination with other names, such as “Elohim hayyim”, translated as “the living God”. Not sure of your source, but if its Steiner, it means he wasn’t aware of the uniqueness of the word God in Genesis 1:26.


              • Steve Hale

                Yes, my Bible too makes this distinction, but also considers the alternate name, Adonai, as a designation. It is clear that we are dealing with two Gods in Genesis, and this is backed up by the first words of the Gospel of John, which begin:

                “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and A God was the Word.” This is in reference to Jahve having gone to the moon.

                Now, of course, we cannot expect that any respectable theological account of Genesis possesses the wisdom of spiritual science, and therefore Steiner must have not been aware of this. How naive you are, my son 🙂


                • Maverick

                  Or Steiner was aware of it, and based some of his associated teachings around the uniqueness of Genesis 1:26. This thought occurred to me after I’d made the previous post. I’m not the Steiner expert that you are Steve, so will leave that one with you.

                  Mustn’t forget the importance of who wrote the Torah. If it was Moses, as some say, it’d mean that he was given the spiritual insight, the same insight given to Steiner, to view the akashic records, since he obviously wasn’t around in those beginnings, and that would be the only record of those details. There is also the thought that Melchizedek passed on the early teachings. This mysterious individual, without father or mother, just may have been around in those beginnings, and so could have been giving first-hand accounts.

                  Regardless, the first chapter of Genesis is indeed a unique chapter that needs to be looked at separately from the rest of the book of Genesis. As far as humanity is concerned – where did we come from? – the first chapter would be the creation of the thought beings Steiner speaks of. The second chapter on is completely different, and involves the intervention of the Creative Forces into the stream through the formation of the first man and woman OUT OF THE DUST OF THE EARTH. This is the only individual that we’re told the Creative Forces formed in such a manner – all others are from “the loins” of Adam, so to speak. This doesn’t include the beings formed as a result of the thought forms “pushing” themselves into various types of flesh, which is where we’re told of half-humans, half-animals and the like. But I’m getting overly wordy to your simple comment Steve, and will leave it at that.


                  • Steve Hale

                    Okay, good. Then, I will give the two comparison points I gave earlier concerning Moses, and his own account given in Exodus, which involves the very personal God, as well as what Steiner had to give in reference to “ejeh asher ejeh”.



                    Genesis, first two chapters are unique, indeed. They express two Gods, who deserve equal rights, and the Father does acknowledge this. Why? Because the Father God of chapter one says, “Let Us make Humanity in Our own Image and according to Our Likeness”.

                    Later, in Exodus, what does the Lord God say to Moses? He says, “I Am the I Am”. So, from ‘Us’ to ‘I Am”, this is the distinction between the two Gods. But, you see, the goal is bigger than that. The goal is expansion beyond what had been in the Mind of God all along. Likeness is something far more complex than mere Image. We are experiencing that process in repeated earth lives. It stands to go on and on, but we can understand it because spiritual science exists in the world. Yea!!

                    In the final analysis, Earth evolution, i.e., the fourth sphere, has been expanded into three further evolutions; those of Jupiter, Venus, and Vulcan. This is why the Fall took place, and why we humans took a step down in order to rise again through Christ. The goal is to understand it in order to feel how much we are involved in a great undertaking. Thanks, Mav, I think of you like Kyle. Young Parsifals.


    • The Father God or the Father Principle can be seen as the ‘hidden God’ (deus absconditus), who precedes the creator God (Elohim) of Genesis 1. In the Kabbala he would be the ‘En Soph’.


      • Steve Hale

        Yes, I would agree with this. The first creation is in the Mind of God, the original Creator impulse seen in Genesis 1. Without this Idea of God, the Father, who is the true Cosmic Architect, or “Demiurgos”, we have no basis for a secondary (lesser) Creative God, i.e., Jahve, who contrives the material manifestation of the perceivable world. Yet, somehow, the roles have been switched, and Jahve is called, “the Demiurge”, who sunk humanity into its burdensome ‘Matter’. Yet, the future demands that we endure this regimen in order to achieve the greatest expansion. As such, Jahve is “Natura”, who is a goddess.

        All of the relevant literature point to this fact. Christ is also known as the “Pleroma”, who meets this sacrifice of Jahve in creating the perceptible world, with resurrection and salvation. This lecture is very good in describing who’s who in the original scheme of things, and how God stood above the Aeons that eventually produced Jahve. Very important to read this:


  42. Upspince

    Steve said: “How convenient, and yet weren’t you the one diverting the attention to your own swing?”

    This is exactly what I don’t want Mr. Hale! I just explained the reason: This is not my site. So I’m going to stop commenting in the meantime, because the purpose of the post is different from the content of my contributions.

    Can I do it, Mr. Hale?

    I’m not going to accuse Jeremy for this; he has to deal with things like that after each post as he has referred to me. Issuing opinions here seems to be an indirect invitation to leave the inspection of the “anthroposophical spirit” of the commentators under the approval of Mr. Hale.

    I decided something else. From this moment on, Mr. Hale is freed from carrying the weight of ideas that he can’t accept. I am talking about my ideas. I will not answer anything from him.

    I know how difficult and unexpected it must be for others to try to show us the problem inherent in Steinerism. It would be like asking a person to lift the floorboards that he puts his feet on while he stands on top of them. This is not advisable for anyone. Either that person clears his feet off the floor before picking him up or he will not be able to see what things he has been stepping on all his life.

    As I said, I will not comment on anything else in this post.


    • Steve Hale

      Yes, I do believe that you came along in order to divert attention from the original intent of the post, which you now acknowledge, but this also has had a kind of silver lining to it, which is the expansion of discussion on the serious topics at hand. For example, JvH and SOP both have engaged in their own brand of spiritual-scientific research, and written books about it. Your input was only to extend that in the direction of what you think and feel about it, and this affords other people to make their relevant input.

      I am someone who simply has something to say concerning the facts of spiritual science, having studied it intensively for 33 years. This blog is approaching seven years of activity, and I have been an active participant for six years. The first year, I put myself on probation as a novitiate, and only listened. I like listening; it helps increase the faculty of “paying attention”, which is the true basis of scholarship. So, you shouldn’t feel offended, or threatened at all. This is an important opportunity to do what you are doing, whatever that is. I would only suggest being more straightforward about it because this is a technical science that has been rigorously analyzed over the years, with many corroborations made a matter of personal experience. Thus, the ‘proof is in the pudding’ for those that engage the methodology, which this very thread has put forth again.


  43. Upspince

    Ton Majoor said: “Well, progress is made in the scientific and scholarly field. Jeshua Ben Pandirá (Jesus in the Talmud) was a historical figure, three Messiah’s were expected (Essenes), Krishnamurti was not a Messiah (World Teacher), Herod’s year of death is still discussed (Steinmann) etc. (…). Blavatsky hated Judaism and Christianity, no ‘dispassionate outlooks’ here (cf. Steiner, The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century, GA 254).”

    [It is not possible to replicate on the same thread, Ton. I have prepared this short answer marginally, like a new thread.]

    Dear Ton, does this human attitude of Blavatsky imply that we should strike back? Is it on this rematch that you do omens for that progress?

    But was it not, in a sense, the most responsible way of doing it by putting Anthroposophy in front of modern theosophy?

    Both directions, the theosophical and the anthroposophical, raised correct criteria and also they manifested polarizations that, up to a point, needed to be found in the pure continental facts as they did.

    I could point to human errors by Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner as well, and we would spend weeks and months tasting dead worms. That’s how repulsive a task of this nature is.

    I want to propose an update of certain impulses. If we do not abandon jealousy and emotional revenge, we know that every task to bring, at least for a time, new impulses will lead the last remnants of the spiritual aspect of Anthroposophy to their total destruction. No one here seems to be interested in the destructive potential of spiritual impulses when taken as opportunities that disguise revenge. I will not be confused or tempted to do this small task by proposing it as the clothing of an update. I do not mean to fix my proposal, as I have said, dear Ton, by shaking off fleas from old blankets.

    To answer this time, you also advise me to embed my memory with lectures on Steinerism. Another person who comments on this site, when answering my lines on Steinerism, insists precisely on returning to the habit of attending part of the six thousand conferences to shut me up. It is obvious, to eyes with open ears, that accepting his quotes from extreme Steinerism as the anthroposophic response would be the same as agreeing to inoculate myself with a vaccine that I currently consider harmful. I repeat, Steinerism is not, for me, genuine Anthroposophy.

    All scientific progress without spirit is doomed to failure, just as a spiritual cultivation that is inapplicable and incapable of understanding the new ahrimanic tendencies of science must also be. New trends and new practical applications of Ahriman in science enabled by human intellect, fear and hatred.

    You simply wish you were right about Jeshua Ben Pandira, even if you do not offer evidence beyond conflicting quotes, and yet you want to be right. Okay, for the tranquility of the anthroposophists who read this, I can grant you the reason, if this way we advance to the objective that is to know the new impulses. I agree with you on whatever you want, but I insist that you, nor Steinerism, have given definitive conclusions on this and other issues. I do it with the desire to continue the dialogue later.

    Is the date of Herod’s death still in dispute? Who disputes this? Spiritual Science or Academics? Ton, has modern academicism already accepted, as a proven fact and beyond all doubt, the physical existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Sees it? It would be a myriad of mental things that don’t serve anyone’s serious intentions.

    I have proposed some data, I know, spurious, on Occult History, and you just attack from Steinerism. They prefer non-esoteric writers, carnivores of books, as Schpenhauer said: you appreciate above all “the dry leaves that go extinct in libraries.”

    Esoteric Judaism is extraordinary.

    We must be demanding in the esoteric investigation of the spiritual substratum of all the great religions, as we have already been, for centuries, with academic research. Remember, I am talking about the great religions, not voodoo or shamanism.

    According to Steiner and Thomas Aquinas, the union of science with the spirit is feasible; but academicism is something different, very different today.

    We have the pure science of the spirit, as the first factor of gestation of a new science, for the Sixth Epoch. It is going to be really funny for the souls who make it through to the next era, to remember the quiet trust that the ancestors of the Fifth Race placed in academicism.

    Academicism is not in a position to recognize the spirit as a determining factor for science. Because academicism apparently offered the only “bridge” since the nineteenth century, Steiner made efforts to use it. But it has been seen that this bridge is not the competent element that we believed to link the spirit with science. Today’s academicism is progressivism against nature, mystical materialism, national socialism postmodern, the welfare state, etc. The spirit cannot gestate anything in that empty belly.


  44. tonmajoor

    Both Blavatsky and Steiner, East and West, made ampel use of academicism (also biologism) in their works. But the historical role of Yeshu ben Pandira is a real point of disagreement, because it is related to the historical Jesus and to the origin of Christianity. The same holds in his time for Krishnamurti and Buddhism. The date of Herod’s death is important in connection with the historicity of the three birth stories in Matthew and Luke.

    “The identification of Jesus with any number of individuals named Yeshu has numerous problems, as most of the individuals are said to have lived in time periods far detached from that of Jesus; etc.” (wiki/Yeshu)
    “(Jehoshua Ben Pandira) A holy man mentioned in the Jewish Talmud (120?-71? BCE). Helena P. BLAVATSKY mentions this personage several times in her writings and suggests that Jeschu ben Panthera is Jesus of Nazareth (CW IV:361) …” (

    “Some scholars support the traditional date of 1 BCE for Herod’s death. Filmer and Steinmann, for example, propose that Herod died in 1 BCE, and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BCE to assert an overlapping with Herod’s rule, and bolster their own legitimacy.” (wiki/Herod_the_Great)


    • Upspince

      Ton Majoor said: “Both Blavatsky and Steiner, East and West, made ampel use of academicism (also biologism) in their works.”

      Dear Ton, both made use of techniques reserved only for connoisseurs. Steiner and Blavatsky did not investigate what we have available about Spiritual Science with clairvoyance alone (atavistic or modernized). The propensity for mediumship in modern theosophical classrooms is real; the negative phenomenon, so to speak, in anthroposophy is extreme spiritualized naturalism and an intellection that easily opens the doors to a mere rational inquiry into the spiritual. Europeanism is not just any unimportant criticism of Steiner; Orientalism is not, much less, an illusory revanchist zeal from Steiner to Blavatsky’s theosophism.

      However, I insist that, between Blavatsky and Steiner, there was a phenomenon of opposition that now must no longer be helped to sustain.

      “But the historical role of Yeshu ben Pandira is a real point of disagreement, because it is related to the historical Jesus and to the origin of Christianity.”

      It is a point of disagreement, yes, and we know that Steiner – please, let’s face it – did his part in offering insights in the form of disagreements in fact. If Blavatsky was openly presenting her factual disagreements, it is obvious that she, as a researcher, was seeking discouragement among Western Christians. Steiner had to present her disagreement by raising, very high, a different flag. However, here we have to infer something about the natural opposition of Steiner’s being. Let us recall one of his great lectures on Karmic Relationships. This opposition, as Steiner well recognizes, led him to proceed with an omnipresent contrary inclination coming out of him. He felt this opposition no less than with the reincarnation of his former Master, Plato, in the personality of an old university professor. His wise nature is, by missionary rule, a task of opposition to challenges written by destiny specifically for him.

      “The same holds in his time for Krishnamurti and Buddhism. The date of Herod’s death is important in connection with the historicity of the three birth stories in Matthew and Luke.”

      For us, Jeshua Ben Pandira is, behind Blavatsky’s purely factual and “offensive” statement, one of the personalities of the Inner Master of Jesus of Nazareth.

      They are very different things and are processed in the Superior Worlds also differently: incarnation of the Inner Master of Jesus (or Jeshua Ben Pandira) and the incarnation of the Cosmic Christ. In the Talmud, the Jeshua identification is factual, somewhat dry. The Talmud was not written by just one man. But that it is thus found in the Talmud does not mean that Jeshua Ben Pandirá is recognizable, as Initiated, in the Superior Worlds as the only bearer of the Cosmic Christ, the Chief of the Souls of the Solar Site, Our Lord. Since the appearance of the documents called Gnostic Gospels, Jeshua Ben Pandira, Jesus, receives in certain esoteric circles the sacred name of Aberamentho. There is no problem if the Talmud or Blavatsky pulls water into his mill with regard to the factual identity, I repeat, of the various names of Jesus of Nazareth.

      It must not be forgotten, I have already mentioned it, that the most powerful and elevated universal forces such as Christ, the Holy Spirit or the Father, need the expression of High Initiates, whose realized souls have previously raised their Master Spirit. Without this condition, fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth by incarnating what was millennial in Jeshua Ben Pandira, the descent of the Cosmic Christ would never have occurred among us. In other words, God will continue to depend on what the man of flesh and blood can offer him. And so with the other forces in the universe.

      There are, to express the idea briefly, three faces to analyze in the evangelical characters ‘good or bad’. One of these faces has already been studied, ad nauseam, by theological and documentary scholarship of many centuries. The other two faces have not been fully unfolded. By offering us his esoteric study of the Gospel of John, Steiner has given enough to consider on these three faces, but not enough, from the point of view of moral and spiritual practice needs for the 21st century —the century of Ahriman.

      Let us take without fear the hidden aspect of the evangelical history and the symbolic-real aspect presented briefly by the evangelists. The richness of Symbolist realism is enormous, extensive, while the properly described occult history serves to break the mold of theological scholarship on the first face. Without the hidden story, realistic symbolism will sound and be understood, anyway, only as anecdotes of pseudo-spiritual self-improvement, which is one of Ahriman’s aims: he only allows, today, a rational or harmless gospel. Anthroposophy separated from Platonism is fully fulfilling what Ahriman needs.

      Now let’s touch on the short passage of Jesus being presented to Herod. In which of the faces not very visited by theology will we place the presentation of Jesus before Herod? Theologically we know that the details vary as the voice of the Evangelist changes. There are keys to real-symbolic determination for the Jesus of this section of the Gospel and of this Herod. Rudolf Steiner’s Inductive Power of the Inner Teacher anticipated knowledge activities for humanity envisioned at the bottom of each gospel. He adds certain historical and hidden data in the Gospel of John and in the others to dismember the dense theological trunks. Honestly, it is sublime, extraordinary the inductive use of the Master of Steiner to assume the pieces of history that make up the links of our civilization from the four gospels. And yet we prefer to stay and argue about the polarizations of Blavatsky and Steiner; we formed factions, we accentuated a separation that had its own expiration date.

      However, a simple key to solve, although it is not the only key available, before the conscience of the reader of the Gospel who seeks the hidden will say something similar to these words: Jesus, like any Initiate in full incarnation, is presented before Humanity (Herod), and to be lacerated by the verbal criticism of the people who listen to him; he is the destiny of any Master who serves Humanity. Joseph, the “father” of Jesus “, has ceased to be called that and Herod the father is replaced, during the derision in court of this adult Jesus, by a different Herod.

      In the elementary teachings of the Church the focus on the life of Jesus persists as a ‘drama’. In the catechesis of the Church, before they were contaminated with the ideals of social struggle, it is said: The Life, Passion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord. Some text has recently referred to the friendship between Pilate and the historical Jesus, the powers of this Jesus and the knowledge of Pilate about the possible identity of the being who spoke and acted for him. Steiner comments about Jesus’ close relationship and his accusers. What else can be added?

      From the hidden history that we know it is inferred from the judgment in which, finally, Jeshua Ben Pandirá (the person already united to the Cosmic Christ and the Internal Master or Individuality) is required to change his testimony. This is more or less how the historical Jesus is invited to recant: “You have said such and such things. You will be in prison and die, although you can leave in peace if you change all your statements.” Jesus simply did not accept and offered us, with his torture, new faces to analyze what is happening evangelically and that it is of real benefit for the Initiates.

      Jesus, historically, is massacred. What we see in Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ and Catherine Emmerick’s stories are a faint shadow of what happened before and after Golgotha. In the Middle Ages circulated, among other relics, a foreskin of Jesus. This presumed relic can give an account, although it no longer exists, of the savagery of the physical tortures to which the humanity of Our Lord was subjected.

      How many people were crucified next to the Messiah on Golgotha? The introduction of two additional characters, accompanying Jesus is, according to the hidden story, a valuable pedagogical addition from old Initiates to the apprentices of Christian Esotericism. The evangelists we know did not stimulate the creation of Dimas and Gestas! They are transformations of certain classical characters generously placed in later evangelical copies. Looking at it from the point of view of the documented accounts, if they are ever found, it would appear that they are, from the point of view of conventional history, unjustified inventions.

      Krishnamurti, or Jiddu, to put it better, was the victim of a psychological imbalance in his personality. It’s something that he overcame though. He is a great Master (the Inner Spirit, Alcione) but he is neither the Representative of Humanity nor the Bodhisattva of the 20th century that is being discussed here. It is clear that the time will come when Alcione retakes his place of director of some culture, but he did not do this in the 20th century.

      ““Some scholars support the traditional date of 1 BCE for Herod’s death.”

      We need to analyze these issues from all suggested evangelical faces. We have the hidden story. According to this occult history, the incarnation of the Cosmic Christ in the adult personality of Jeshua Ben Pandira, the famous Birth in the Manger, happened in the year 5 of our era. Chronologically, conventional history should correct the number of years on official dates by five. Historically we should compute our year 2021 as the year 2026.


      • Upspince

        A grammar correction. When invoking Jeshua Ben Pandira, it is recognizable, for the Initiates, to see him in the Superior Worlds as Our Lord, the bearer of the Cosmic Christ.


    • Steve Hale

      Ton, you wrote:

      “Some scholars support the traditional date of 1 BCE for Herod’s death. Filmer and Steinmann, for example, propose that Herod died in 1 BCE, and that his heirs backdated their reigns to 4 or 3 BCE to assert an overlapping with Herod’s rule, and bolster their own legitimacy.” (wiki/Herod_the_Great)”

      Of course, this is all intellectual soul nonsense, constructed by modern-day scholars who live within certain extreme limitations of inductive reasoning. To truly adduce the issue of Herod’s death, one has to closely examine the Gospel of St. Matthew. What does it tell us in its first two chapters? First, in chapter 1, is described the 42 generations of Abraham, which lead finally to the father of the Solomon Jesus child, who is Joseph. As previously described, this Joseph is the reincarnation of the eleventh son of Jacob, who retained the clairvoyant faculty that he had possessed as the Visier of the Pharaoh, described in the later chapters of Genesis. As Joseph, the father of the Solomon Jesus child, this clairvoyance is now muted down to having certain insights that come through dreams. As such, he would have three dreams related to the son to be born. The first tells him that his wife is going to have a child born of the Holy Spirit, and that he is to leave her alone in order to produce this son.

      The second dream is the one that tells him that he needs to take the child and mother into Egypt because Herod has been told that the true King of the Jews has been born. Now, if we trace this back to actual history, we find that when the three wise men of the east saw the star which signaled this birth, it was 7 BC. And, thus, at this very point in time, the era of Anno Domini began. The BC era ends at 7 BC, and the AD era begins. That is how we can accommodate the death of Herod some nearly three years after the birth of the Solomon Jesus.

      Now, whether this has anything to do with getting hung up on Jeshu ben Pandira, who lived as Maitreya Bodhisattva one hundred years before the advent of Christ, I don’t know. But, we do know that John the Baptist was a stellar presence as the direct forerunner of the Christ, and even saw his purpose quite forthrightly. He said, “He must increase while I must decrease”. What could be more indicative of a Bodhisattva?


      • Logical deductions shouldn’t contradict the known or new historical facts. In Steiner’s (and Blavatsky’s) days, the same biblical issues with their implications for chronology were discussed, based upon the then known scientific facts (see wiki entries):

        E.g. the identity of Jeshu ben Pandira (Alexander Jannai’s reign from 103 BC), Herod the Great’s death (eclipse of the moon in 1 BC), the star of Bethlehem (Jupiter-Venus conjunction of 2 BC), the identity of John the evangelist (the beloved Lazarus of Bethany), the two expected Messiah’s (two family trees of Matthew and Luke), the crucifixion (lunar eclipse of April 3, 33 AD), the ressurrection in Matthew (Jerusalem earth quake of 33 AD)

        Reign of Herod the Great: Steinmann and Young (2020)

        Click to access ElapsedTimes.pdf

        Steinmann (2009)


        • Steve Hale

          Adductive reasoning will always be the superior method over the deductive and inductive reasoning of the Intellectual Soul. As such, it is the superior of these two because it is of the Consciousness Soul, and why it can be shown that 7 BC becomes 0 AD, with the forecast of the birth of the two Jesus children. Whatever scholars say today is negligible in the absence of spiritual-scientific knowledge. Yet, you continue to post these things. Why? Does Steinmann, for example, say something new, as if he understands it? You, yourself, give Steiner references as if you might understand them. I give full quotes because I want people to understand them. Dialectics is what is needed here. Questions and Answers.

          For example, how is it known that the BC era ended with the birth of the first of the two Jesus children? Answer: Anno Domini, which means, “In the Day of the Lord”. So, the seven years that the Jews would cling to in bringing the BC era to an end, are erased immediately with the Star of Bethlehem. The new age begins, AD, i.e., Anno Domini.

          I know this logic might not suffice in today’s setting, but one day it will be proven as much as 2 + 2 = 4.


  45. Steve Hale

    Kyle, you wrote this as part of your thoughtful response:

    “The whole idea of Anthroposophy seems to be to step away from the mystery schools and the emancipation of higher knowledge for the common folk. Isn’t that why Anthroposophy exists, to share this knowledge and how to attain it with all, not just a few?”

    Yes, exactly. The chief feature of today’s mysteries is that they are self-initiated, and pertain to the Will function, just as previous Mystery schools brought forth Thinking (most ancient), and Feeling Soul experiences. Steiner began in earnest at the turn of the 20th century to disseminate the Cosmic Intelligence of Michael once the War in Heaven had been won, c. 1879. As such, Rudolf Steiner evolved year by year in this dissemination, with ever-increasing revelations and specificity of detail. Thus, much of this work still remains to be afforded as a free offering. It is far from reaching the state of “steinerisms” that need to be left behind. I believe that God is in the details, and not the devil. Rudolf Steiner was very little opinionated, and the reason is that he was possessed by facts relating to modern Gnosis.

    Spiritual Science is the renewal of the ancient Gnosis, whose greatest victim was Manes, who was martyred and tortured to death on the sight of the future Academy of Gondhishapur around 277 AD. Not long after his bodily death, he incarnated in Avatar form in order to conduct a Supersensible Council, c. 333 AD, in order to implement again the decimated Manichean Spiritual Science in a much mote protected and secret form, based on the principles of the Rosy Cross. And, for 1500 years these secret schools of Rosicrucian wisdom worked in humble silence to rebuild the original Manichean system that had been destroyed “root and branch” from before.

    Then, at the midpoint of the 19th century, a supersensible council was held in the spiritual world, and the decision was made to make this secret knowledge of the Rosicrucians a matter of public property beginning in the 20th century. Rudolf Steiner’s incarnation was prepared for this, and he accomplished it. It is still being accomplished when important reference points can be given for the purpose of knowledge and understanding.

    Steiner spoke about the Supersensible Council held by Manes in the 4th century in GA 113, lecture 9, dated 31 August 1909. It involved significant other Avatars in creating the Rosicrucian movement that Steiner would carry forward into the modern age.


    • Steve Hale

      Here is what Rudolf Steiner wrote to Eduard Schure in September 1907. It is the second part of a short three-part biographical sketch, and published in GA 262.

      “In the early part of the fifteenth century Christian Rosenkreutz
      went to the east to find a balance between the initiations of the
      East and West. One consequence of this, following his return, was
      the definitive establishment of the Rosicrucian stream in the West.
      In this form Rosicrucianism was intended to be a strictly secret
      school for the preparation of those things which would become the
      public task of esotericism at the turn of the 20th century, when
      material science would have found a provisional solution to certain

      These problems were described by Christian Rosenkreutz as:
      1) The discovery of spectral analysis, which revealed the
      material constitution of the cosmos.
      2) The introduction of material evolution into organic science.
      3) The recognition of a differing state of consciousness from
      our normal one through the acceptance of hypnotism and suggestion.
      Only when this material knowledge had reached fruition in science
      were certain Rosicrucian principles from esoteric science to be made
      public property.

      Until that time Christian-mystical initiation was given to the
      Occident in the form in which it passed through its founder,
      the `Unknown One from the Oberland’, to St. Victor, Meister Echkart,
      Tauler, etc.

      Within this whole stream, the initiation of Mani, who also
      initiated Christian Rosenkreutz in 1459, is considered to be of
      a `higher degree’; it consists of the true understanding of the
      nature of evil. This initiation and all that it entails will have
      to remain completely hidden from the majority for a long time to
      come. For where even only a tiny ray of its light has flowed into
      literature it has caused harm, as happened with the irreproachable
      Guyau, of whom Friedrich Nietzsche became a pupil.”


  46. Dear Jeremy, I just wanted to thank you for your article! Kudos for your courage and honesty!


    • Thank you very much, Yaka – and welcome to the blog!


      • Steve Hale

        Hi Jeremy,

        Well, you know by now that I love your courage and honesty, as well. Hopefully, it comes out in the commentary section of this blog. Since this particular discussion appears to be coming to an end, with the typical ‘loose threads’, I would like to refer to your last paragraph in the essay:

        “For reason of these deep karmic connections between Steiner and Edith Maryon, I am inclined to think that in her current incarnation as Judith von Halle, the I of her being is in close touch with the great Christian initiate who was Rudolf Steiner. I therefore give high credence to her spiritual research and insights and less credence to the criticisms from people such as Prokofieff, Thomas Meyer and Mieke Mossmuller. I speak as I find, and I find their thoughts overly head-centred and intellectual. I wish they could find their way to the kind of heart-centred thinking towards which all anthroposophists should aspire. Like my second correspondent cited above: “Sometimes I feel that many people wouldn’t recognise Christ if he walked through their front door.”

        I do think that Sergei Prokofieff was far more critical of others than he deserved to be, and why this was so, I really don’t know. What made him think that Valentin Tomberg, who died in 1973, when he was just five years into his anthroposophical research, was someone to overtly criticize? As well, with JvH, it appears that SOP could not keep hands off concerning her own delicate investigations. You mentioned Thomas Meyer, and especially Mieke Mossmuller as recent critics of the work of Judith, and I was wondering what that was about. Did they reject her perceived clairvoyance, which I understand was on the level of Anne Catherine Emmerich, or was it possibly the claim of having experienced Stigmata?

        Yet, no one was more critical of SOP than Irina Gordienko, and the real author behind her facade. This expose actually helped a great deal.


        • Steve Hale

          Yet, just five years after the Gordienko book, which was so critical of SOP in every detail, we have this production coming at the Christmas Conference of 2002. Proky’s history of the anthroposophical movement, which was designed to tell Bondarev to, “shut up”.

          Of course, Bondy would get his revenge with the book from 2005, on the ‘spurious’ “Christmas Conference of 2002”. I wonder how many have seen that chestnut? —And the Beat goes on, dum dum dum da dum da dum dum —

          You see, these guys from the Russian Folk Soul, I mean Prokofieff and his elder, Bondarev, must have come into a kind of conflict of ways and means because they both held the chalice of the Grail for the future, and yet, both let their respective Luciferic Ego’s get in the way. Would anyone disagree with that?

          Using the Russian Folk Soul to attempt to betray the 6th cultural epoch only proves how insidiously clever Sorath is in this day and age. Going back to 1915, we have the better example of it, which has stood the test of time. Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. Steiner remarked about them, and watched over their progression from east to west until 1925, when he died.

          And the Beat goes on ……


        • Hello Steve, I’m intrigued that you should think Bondarev is the real author of Gordienko’s book. I’ve not heard of this before and wonder if you have any evidence to support it. Bondarev is quite a dodgy character and you can read one perspective on him here:


          • Steve Hale

            The only evidence I have is that the book was handwritten by Irina Gordienko in Gennady Bondarev’s library, like a dictation. Willy Lochmann has verified this fact, and the book can be purchased this way. As well, it seems obvious that another hand and voice is behind hers. This is easily seen in the author’s preface, previously sent. Repeated reference to “we” can be found here. As well, the level of knowledge about Prokofieff is well beyond her ken as a young Russian scientist of 33 years. Only Bondarev could know that much about Steiner’s, Philosophy of Freedom, having written a nearly 1000 page book of his own on it. His criticism of Prokofieff would continue with his book on the Christmas Conference of 2002. Remember, he was expelled from the Anthroposophical Society in 1998. They did collaborate in the 1980’s with the Russian Society, and Prokofieff alludes to Bondarev as an influence in the 1970’s, as well.


  47. ininsoi

    Wow! Jeremy you really stirred up the hornet’s nest with this topic. For me it was fascinating to read the article and then all the comments. It left me with two personal memories that I’d like to share.

    John Wilkes was at Emerson College when I attended in 1975-6 and I have a memory of watching him and his assistant Nigel Wells who had been a fellow pupil with me at Kings Langley cleaning and doing maintenance on the flowforms in the pond on the lower lawn one evening at twilight.

    Cut to 2013 when Sergei O. Prokofieff visited Lima, Peru and kindly responded to my request for a personal face-to-face private meeting. We talked about a variety of topics including the fact that I had had a direct experience of being with the Godhead, the Etheric Christ and the Archangel Michael some six years prior to the present meeting. I also asked about who he felt was the most likely candidate for the incarnation of Ahriman. He expressed that for him it was actually unlikely to be a specific individual, more a general unfolding manifestation through technology and AI.

    In this personal meeting he came across as kind, relaxed, even easy-going, whereas that same the evening at his public lecture at Colegio Waldorf Lima I do remember him having a rather stiff, formal and dare-I-say dogmatic overall stance.

    I commend you for your courage in writing ‘edgy’ articles Jeremy. Keep ’em coming!


    • Steve Hale

      Hi Martin,

      We have become acquainted over time, and I think you like what you are reading on this blog. The comments, of course, are the thriving line in keeping the discourse alive, and this is so, and why you see such a panoply of diversity about what it all means.

      So, let’s keep it going. Jeremy has been asked about T.H. Meyer and Mieke Mossmuller, and their difficulties with JvH. Maybe he will answer it now. Thanks for chiming in. Meeting SOP in the flesh in 2013 is huge. He sees you as a confidante, and then later, with his official audience, he goes starch. Well, that can be expected when the Science of the Spirit has to be explained in some manner to the tribes. At least, as a European, you saw it, and that is good. Sergei died the next year in the summer of 2014.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ininsoi

        Hi Steve,

        Yes, in retrospect the feeling was, here is a dying man keeping it together by sheer force of will. A poignant detail was that we were both born in the same year of 1954.

        Another detail is that I presented myself as a non-mainstream, unconventional student of RS and the Great Mystery (albeit married to a true-blue foursquare anthroposophist long-time Waldorf teacher) who had for many years gone out on my own into the world of North and South American Indian ceremonial tradition including participating in many Peyote, Ayahuasca and San Pedro ceremonies. He was not at all phased by this and did not give me any of the ‘Old Moon’ and ‘atavism’ judgemental reaction that I have somewhat come to expect from prominent anthroposophists. He just expressed fascination when I related how I had completely left my body during an Ayahuasca ceremony in 2007, had flown faster than light to witness the Godhead for a nanosecond which was a field of love so powerful at the center of the universe to be painful to my insignificant speck of consciousness. In backing away I found myself in the presence of Christ who showered me with unconditional love. After a long time (although time is experienced entirely differently on the ‘other side’) I left His presence and entered into that of another radiant being who I immediately knew was the archangel Michael. Again I spent a long time with him and downloaded much information. Obviously this is a highly abbreviated version, I expound the experience much more fully in my book ‘Long Road to Chavin’ (Amazon 2018).

        My question for SOP was, why had I, a rather unorthodox and dionysian chap and nobody special, been given this profound experience when so many who played ‘by the rules’ had not. His answer was that there are many deep mysteries and that he had no ready explanation.

        best wishes



        • Steve Hale

          Your experience from 2007 touches upon an important subject that we are dealing with right here now! Experiencing the Godhead, even for a fleeting moment. In fact, it can only be for a fleeting moment because you would have been destroyed in your temporal existence by meeting the Unconditional Love of the Most High. Agape is beyond yet the possibility of experiencing it with the presently developed nervous system. Spiritual Science exists to cultivate this eventuality of meeting the original and true, “Demiurgos”, who is The Father that Christ speaks so directly to His disciples about in those four chapters from the Gospel of John, i.e., 14-17.

          Since you have brought this into the public domain, we might as well admit that our private discussions about the possibilities found in so-called, “Experimental Mysticism” are real enough, and yours from 2007 clearly indicate that you were in the hands of experts. To experience the Father for a moment, and then the Son of God, and then Michael, all in sequence, is very compelling. You could have been reduced to rubble, but you weren’t because your guides knew what they were doing.

          I participated briefly in “experimental mysticism” back in 1985, almost by accident it seems, while yours seems to have been by design in going to South America to live in 2006. Steiner gives the equation, of course, which is a three-step process of building up the cerebro-spinal system in order to withstand experiencing this Unconditional Love of God. With God, no separation was intended at all; His Creation was in His Mind as Pure Image, Genesis 1:26-31.

          It was His surrogate LORD God, Jahve, who had to create the material manifestation for the Likeness phase that has taken time and much complexity in bringing forth the Universal Human. I am sure that SOP could have talked to you for days about this concept.


    • Good to hear from you, Martin, and thank you for your kind comment. I’m glad you were able to meet SOP and surprised that he should think there would not be a physical incarnation of Ahriman, given Steiner’s clear indications on this point. Best wishes, Jeremy


  48. ininsoi

    Hi Jeremy,

    He did not absolutely say there would not be a specific physical incarnation, he just declined to speculate on who it might be and put much more emphasis on Ahriman manifesting through computers, transhumanism etc.

    all the best



  49. kathyfinnegan

    I think it would be fitting that Ahriman “incarnate” mechanically, digitally – in the “form” he intends for humanity.


  50. kathyfinnegan

    In the larger picture, I think we sidetrack ourselves by speculating on the what and where of Ahriman’s incarnation. Our teacher has told us he/It is already incarnating in each of us as our Double, and that by “redeeming” and transforming him, we gain the Lesser Guardian – our door into the spiritual world. Steiner stresses that we have to free ourselves from cognitive splitting, from the traps of the intellect, and transcend both our sympathies and antipathies, in order to experience the larger purpose. Anthroposophy is not a head trip, it’s a lived experience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s