[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Vadim Bondar
Date: 02 Jan 2002
Time: 18:33:45
Remote Name: 10.10.17.180
(the article itself can be found at:http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm The above article begins with the image of a can of worms, and when you finish it, you'll feel that this is what you had. The first part of the article is filled with insults against Rudolf Steiner, none of which, in my opinion, are in the least substantiated. But the whole article, written by someone who may at times even pose as an anthroposophist, is really directed against Anthroposophy and its Society. That's the reason for the image of the can of worms. So why even "dignify" it with a response? I'll give you may answer in the form of a story which C.S. Lewis first told. Imagine you are at a party which is nice and worm, you feel comfortable, and then somebody starts to tell a racial joke. Some people laugh. The first time you presented with such situation you might feel torn. Should you respond or should you join the crowd? You feel that what's being said is wrong, on the other hand, these people invited you, they probably liked you, and if you respond, you'll probably have to go in the cold night and perhaps get a reputation of a bad party person. Does it matter anyway? But it does. This story is an example of a situation where the spiritual meets everyday life. You see, every person who is beginning to proceed on the way of spiritual development gets as a first sign of development a sense of truth. It does not only apply to anthroposophists, but particularly to them. In the instance of our story, what you feel is wrong is more than just a feeling. It is a recognition of a spiritual truth, which may be expressed, for example, as "all humanity is one". If you look at the situation from the materialistic point of view, it doesn't matter what's being said or it can be turned around whichever way you want. From the spiritual perspective, however, if you let the untruth stand, you are actually denying the spiritual truth. Because what you have is not a subjective feeling but an objective spiritual knowledge. Now I return to the article. As it is, the author of the article seems to have contempt for anything objective. Spiritual investigation is subjective, she says, and it fills one with pride. We need to "balance" this upward movement, she says, with a donward movement: consciousness with unconsciousness, order with chaos, "inner hierarchy" with "inner anarchy". And after this upward movement had been "balanced" and nullified, she says that we need to focus on building "horizontal" relationships, where everyone is equal and kept in check by others - "inner democracy". Even if we leave aside the authors peculiar view on spiritual investigation, the view that in effect denies the mission of Anthroposophy at this present stage of evolution, the second part of the proposition is no less harmful. If it became a reality for Anthroposophical Society, if political (equal among many) relationships became dominant, it would mean the end of the Society as we know it, for it would mean instituting something that works not only in contradiction, but in direct opposition to anthroposophical spiritual impulse. This has not happened as yet but there are certain tendencies. Remember the committee which decided whether Anthroposophy is racist? Or more recent news about forming a public relations department? Just like in our story - does a person have dignity because of an underlying spiritual reality or just because he is "equal"? After all you can be equal in stupidity too, you know. Or should we vote on that? I can't even say that the article is distorting the truth. It simply presents the untruth. If you say that spiritual reality is subjective, than you can claim, for example, that just because Tomberg had a dream where he thought he saw Steiner, this is a proof that Tomberg became his successor. That Steiner himself on many occasions and in written form pointed to Marie Steiner as his successor - you might as well ignore. Fortunately, Tomberg himself was more forthcoming about who he really was in contact with from beyond the grave. He names French occultists (Papus et al) - the movement quite different in its purposes from Anthroposophy. Nor did Tomberg in later life try to pretend being anthroposophist. He simply didn't believe in a modern consciousness-soul epoch and focused on going back to Roman heritage. But he didn't try to sell it as the new breed of Anthroposophy. His "followers" do exactly that. It is not about "democracy" of opinions. It is about presenting the untruth. There are many more articles coming from the same direction and all of them claim connection to Tomberg. Strangely, apart from a courageous book by Prokofieff on Tomberg and his followers, for the most part these articles are left without a response from anthroposophists. Now quite often they are even paraded in anthroposophical publications. Yet "response" is of the same root as "responsibility". Some of you know that the life of Anthroposophical Society is governed by 33-year cycle. According to that, in 1989 (1923+2*33) the new and important period in Anthroposophical Society was supposed to have begun. Yet it seems that for more than 10 years anthroposophists abandoned their responsibilities and in effect abandoned Anthroposophy, allowing the untruth spread like a cloud of dust over our heads. Now if you realize that Anthroposophy carries a very important mission, that it is in fact the most important spiritual movement of our time, you will understand me when I say that if anthroposophists, along with many other people, did not abandon their spiritual responsibility, the event of September 11 - which clearly had a spiritual dimension and implications on a global scale - would not have happened. Now that it did - I hope it will bring us the necessary courage to decide whether we want a truly spiritual organization which is conscious of its spiritual responsibility or should we be satisfied with just feel-good-be-nice party-like organization? Can we feel the responsibility for the role of Anthroposophy in the evolution of mankind or do we want to preserve the comfort of the party? You will need to respond. Just don't overestimate the comfort.