Anthroposophical Misleading Thoughts

Near the end of his life, Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) wrote a number of short essays for the members of the Anthroposophical Society. In a way they summarized, in a highly concentrated form, the whole of anthroposophy. Each essay ended with an even shorter summary of the contents, and became known as “leading thoughts.” These leading thoughts were found to have a powerful transformative effect when used for meditation. These essays were later collected and published in a volume entitled, “Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts” (1973).

Unfortunately, after Steiner’s death, certain prominent and influential anthroposophists began entertaining and promulgating “misleading anthroposophical thoughts” that have also had a powerful transformative effect – but in this case, one leading to the distortion and misunderstanding of anthroposophy as “spiritual science.”

This website page, therefore, is devoted to addressing and correcting some of these all-too-accepted, anthroposophical errors.

 

List of Misleading Thoughts (on separate pages below)

Page 2:  The Goetheanum is a Modern-day Mystery Temple
Page 3:  Rudolf Steiner Founded the New Christian Mysteries
Page 4:  The New Christian Mysteries are “Michael Mysteries”
Page 5:  The Christmas Conference is the Most Important Event to Occur in the Twentieth Century on the Physical Plane
Page 6:  Rudolf Steiner is the Greatest Christian Initiate of the Twentieth Century
Page 7:  Rudolf Steiner Convened the Christmas Conference of 1923-24 in Order to Found the New Christian Mysteries
Page 8:  What is the Difference Between a Supersensible Fact and a Personal Opinion?
Page 9:  Consciously Crossing the Threshold is a Pleasant and Easy Experience

3 thoughts on “Anthroposophical Misleading Thoughts

  1. Albert Jansen

    Hello dear Ron,

    Happy new year 2016 !

    I would like to comment on page 6: Rudolf Steiner is the Greatest Christian Initiate of the Twentieth Century (did you forget the ?)

    My hook to stumble over is your citation of Mark 9:34-35, which occupies the mind a bit.

    If according to Mark (i.e. Christ) the greatest under the servants (initiates) is the one, who comes last and should be servant of all others, then I guess that initiate should have the capacities to come up with a final solution, that is: should also show the willingness to help “ironing out” (outbalance) the differences of opinion of the AAG members and the furious rows fought over the most diverse issues within or outside the AAG already since 1924. Shouldn’t that initiate be somehow the one who indeed shows willingness to outbalance the current state of development even with his next life on Earth – a servile life that also would even need to end abruptly ? Or – how would that solution of the best servant materialize for the AAG you think? If someone is the servant of all – how would that look like?

    But that would in that case be the most developed initiate, Christ is pointing to?

    In that case, that highly developed initiate/adept/clairvoyant would NOT be R. Steiner or anyone else from his (teaching) ranks, since the problems accumulated since the foundation of the AAG are gigantic and also inextricable intertwined with Steiners diverse initiatives. Or would we even need another perspective as the one taken by the citation from the Gospel of Mark to answer the question of the greatest initiate? You are surely right: We shouldn’t go into the question of the greatest at all. To that extend the citation is correct and at its place. But take care – in my opinion the topic as such is simply not relevant.

    Take care and greetings from Hitzacker, Germany

    Albert

    Reply
  2. Ian McGillivray

    [Commenting on: Sergei O. Prokofieff]

    I have been for some time disturbed by his ‘authority’ and adulation, stemming from firstly his pedigree and copious output of exhaustively footnoted texts bearing quotations from RS which no-one ever really checks of course. His MO is to quote Steiner correctly the first few times then make conclusion implicitely Steiner’s but really his own and wrong. There are many more such mistakes and he got away with it because of his and our own good intentions as members of a spiritual brotherhood so that he was taken on faith
    The most serious for me was his fiat that the seasonal dynamic for celebration of the festivals was that of the nothern hemisphere only thus siding with the Christian Community which of course requires and rightly so, to celebrate such festivals globally and simultaneously, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But for the spiritual dynamic behind the year (eg; the 12 Holy Nights) that dynamic which favours human spiritual development go to the seasonal reality (25th June down here and 25th Dec up there in the case of the Holy Nights) for the esoteric student. RS went to a lot of trouble throughout 1923 to give us this aid for approaching the Spirit of the Earth almost, I feel, as consolation or legacy on his passing and to forestall us driving into the ditch, a tragedy of which he was all too aware of and sadly has happened

    Reply
  3. Asher Fryer

    Dear Ron,
    I am very excited to have stumbled across your books on Amazon.com. It is interesting to me that I’ve never come across them before, but they are recent publications. I like the clarity and integrity of your energy and the way you think and write. I am a student of Anthroposphy who thinks very much like yourself I suspect. Anyway, it is wonderful that you have written these books and have a website up!

    Is it possible to gain an ebook version of your works?

    My comment is as follows: you mention that many “Anthroposophists” accept uncritically many ideas of certain authors and ‘authorities’. I want to say that such uncritical acceptance is non-anthroposophical and thus, a contradiction in terms. No true anthroposophist would accept something as important as the mistakes you outline without, at the very least, checking them against reason, experience, and the clear statements of Steiner. Because (in my opinion) most people who follow his teachings are mainly passive receptors of dogmatised and stereotyped ideas, they have neither the knowledge or ability to reflect clearly on this. By definition, they are not true Anthropsophists. This might seem harsh but I see it as a clear truth. It seems to me that the Anthroposophical society is, or is in danger of going down the same path as the early church, in its esoteric side. That is, in a negative sense, especially as the AS isn’t a true religious vehicle or tradition.

    What do you think? Thanks for your time and work,
    Sincerely,
    Asher

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *