Terminology

From Free Man Creator

The spiritual is often compared with a mountain: there are different pathways that ultimately lead to the same.

Indeed there are sides to approach, climb and explore a mountain. Similarly when visiting a city, different people will report different experiences.

Considering the Body of Knowledge regarding the spiritual, what can be called spiritual science today encompasses many knowledge streams in so many cultures across millenia: anthroposophy, theosophy, medieval alchemy, hermetics, esoteric christianity, rosecrianism. One finds spiritual streams in each culture and religion, eg buddhism and the vedic teachings in India, jewish kabbalah, sufism, ancient myths and legends in Greece, the Germanic-Nordic countries, even older such as the Book of Dzyan, etc. This is not meant exhaustively, by extrapolation this encompasses the whole world and all its cultures. See also Schema FMC00.588 on Sources of spiritual science.

Using the examples above, the mountain or city the above knowledge streams are describing is the same, but it is expressed in different languages, each with their own terminology.

Now if one wants to rise above the tunnel vision of a single knowledge system (put off the horse blinkers that hinder us in looking left and right), it helps to be able to juxtapose teachings to realize that the different descriptions are all about the same things. Rudolf Steiner did this very often in his twenty years of lecturing (see below). And, as explain in Note 1 on language frames below, this represents a unique richness of anthroposophy.

At the same time this is also important in order to be able to understand and integrate the teachings by various masters of the White Lodge, that typically have different followings called spiritual 'streams' where people resonate with this or that master and teaching, based on karmic history.

Terminology plays a crucial role in this tower of babel (described in the Book of Genesis) to help people 'lost in translation'. It is not that one needs to spread oneself across all the different teachings or initiation system, quite on the contrary one ought to choose and focus on one. However it provides a valuable brotherhood appreciation to understand that each culture basically has different words for the same spiritual realities.

See the Schemas below to contemplate some specific illustrations, eg Schema FMC00.416A (Western, Vedic, Sufi terminology)

Background: challenges with terminology

Spiritual science uses an extensive 'jargon' with a myriad of spiritual scientific terms that describe concepts and realities not found in science or the description of our physical reality. It implies that many 'reserved words' are terms with a special and specific meaning, even if these terms are sometimes also used in our everyday use of language.

A complicating factor is that the concepts and realities have been described with different sets of terminology or nomenclature, eg terminology is different in anthroposophy than in theosophy, but similarly so another terminology is used in medieval alchemy, hermetics, esoteric christianity.

As a result, anthroposophy will use different terms than theosophy (eg Steiner and Blavatsky), and Bardon and Daskalos use still different terminology. Yet it is all about the same realities that we are to get to know and understand.

The problem is even broader:

  • Rudolf Steiner also uses terminology used in previous cultural ages and their spiritual scientific teaching, eg those of Zarathustra in ancient Persia, the Holy Rishis in Ancient India, the terminology of Greek philosophers or the symbolism and terms used in Ancient Egypt, or the way of viewing in the middle-ages and/or rosecrucian teachings.
  • the same goes for names of spiritual entities in the various cultures, and the Gods in myths and legends and various religious teachings
  • furthermore, in Rudolf Steiner's twenty years of teaching, certain terms changed from theosophical terminology (where more Indian sanskrite terms are used) to more european terms. See specifically: Mapping theosophical terminology
  • and last but not least, in the last century, dozens of translators and editors have made choices with regards to terms, eg 'Ego' versus 'I', the use of capitals for the planetary stages, planets and hierarchies (or not). Similarly so for authors of secondary literature.

As a result, there is no simple single set of terminology. The already complex subject matter is not simplified by the fact that the student has to master and bridge these different terminology sets, with various different labels for the same (or similar) concepts.

Therefore on this site we use only one single set of terms for the hierarchies, the structural bodily principles or bodies of Man, etc .. and have streamlined for consistency wherever needed under the SWCC philosophy.

We did however keep the use of both the planes (from theosophy) as well as (the astro-language of) the planetary spheres, zodiac and fixed stars.

What remains is still the mapping between the sets of terminology used. Indeed the student will still be confronted with the different terms across the many sources. See 'Illustrations' section below, and/or Mapping theosophical terminology. These are a first iteration of a section that, in the future, could provide a better overview of mappings between various sets of terminology. See also 'References and further reading' section below for additional info.

Problem statement

Rudolf Steiner

As a or the major source of modern teachings on spiritual science comes from Rudolf Steiner, we need to consider the following.

  • First: Rudolf Steiner lectured for 20 years, and during that time did not always use the same terminology consistently. This a.o. of a result that initial audiences were within the theosophical society and hence the theosophical terminology of that time was used, with terms from ancient indian teachings (in sanskrite). In parallel but especially later on, more and new anthroposophical terminology was introduced to make the language of the teachings more european (eg manas, budhi, atma became spirit self, life spirit, and spirit man). Similarly Globes and Rounds are called Conditions of Form and Conditions of Life. And so on.
  • Secondly: The thousands of lectures by Rudolf Steiner span a period of twenty years, and were edited and published, and later translated, over a period of about a century. This means that a large group consisting of different generations of editors and translators worked on this. Furthermore, english translations of the many GA volumes were organized by different teams and publishing companies over decades. A normal consequence is that there is no overall consistency in terminology, as individual editors and translators used their own best judgment on a case by case basis. We are also confronted with the reality that errors sneaked in to the original transcripts and editing before publishing, and the fact that consecutive editors did not always have the in-depth mastery of spiritual science but 'glossed over' existing texts, polishing them mainly for readability as they deemed right. One well known editor did not know the difference between elementary kingdoms and elementals of nature.

Needless to say this adds a layer of complexity for the student.

The question is whether we need to carry this heritage along. Lectures are referenced all the time with all these terms mixed, and a lot of attention goes to the discussions with purists about the literal aspect and respecting of the original texts. Rightly so, the base text is the authentic source and its meaning should not be played around with. However it is not that simple, as the Gesamtausgabe process through which we access the lectures has gone through decades of editing of the original transcript by different editors, and then the same goes for translators who change the spin, phrasing and choice of words even more (because they have no choice, english is not german). See references below for further reading.

Daskalos

Daskalos uses different terminology, but the concepts and terms map nearly 100% to Rudolf Steiner's teachings. The words however sometimes also have a more greek basis (eg noetic, exomatosis). Below follow examples of terms, and their mapping on this site

  • gross material body -> physical body
  • psychic body and world -> astral
  • noetic body -> mental body (this means both the human I and Man's higher triad)
  • noetic world -> spirit world, both lower & higher
  • exomatosis -> OBE
  • sacred disks (or 'psychonoetic centers') -> chakras
  • mystic -> initiate (see also below)
  • psychonoetic -> astra-mental
  • permanent personality -> Individuality (as opposed to Personality)
  • archangels -> spiritual beings of the hierarchies, not specifying which order (so not only of the archangelic order)

Given the fact there is no value add to introduce yet another set of synonyms, this site has chosen to replace these terms in Daskalos' teachings and map them to the anthroposophical terminology chosen (see more on this page).

Franz Bardon

Rawn Clark

levels of 'self' - see also Schema FMC00.133

and:

  • essential meaning
  • ketheric brilliance
  • adonai light

These terms are best explained in his 'Book of Aries' however see also Rawn Clark#2023-02-14 - Rawn Clark but also Rawn Clark#1998 - Rawn Clark 'Attending the unity'. Rawn uses the Gra Tree of Life and distinguishes different levels of Self (see right on Schema FMC00.133A). When one can 'take down' the energy from kether or tiphareth down to one's physical body, one gets respectively the ketheric brilliance of adonai light and this energy can be used for creation. The latter is described in TMO magic of IHVH_ADNI.

Notes:

  • Clark's focus is on the higher spirit world (greater self, essential meaning, ketheric brilliance) and the act of creation (magic), he often stated he was not a scholar but speaks and teaches from a pure experiential perspective
  • adonai light is not to be confused with terms such as 'rainbow body' in Tibetan Buddhism (Dzogchen), or the 'light body' umbrella term in new age teachings.

Statement of position

On this site the mission is to look at the future and not the past. Therefore we have chosen to use a single consistent terminology.

When different terms and options were available, choices were made based on the basis of various criteria including useage, in other words 'how established' or widespread terms were. For sure this is debatable, every choice can be challenged, but we are convinced that the total set of choices made represents a modern language framework that is easiest for the student (because, that is where the choices come from and are based on).

The next section gives an overview of (some of) the choices made for a uniform nomenclature on this site.

Overview table with terminology choices made

Spiritual hierarchies

Regarding the naming of the spiritual hierarchies - see Schema FMC00.273 on Overview of the spiritual hierarchies

  • the use of the terms angels, archangels and archai is so established, that there is little value add of keeping the latin angeloi, or the anthroposophical Spirits of Twilight, Spirits of Fire, Spirits of Personality. The latter have not been commonly adopted or widespread, and therefore take so much getting used to that they add little value over the simplicity of using established terms.
  • It is different for Exusiai, Dynamis and Kyriotetes. These are the more difficult Greek terms (even to write and pronounce), yet somehow more widespread and established. Here the choice was made for the modern Spirits of Form, Motion and Wisdom .. because it consistently groups the Second Hierarchy and also adds keywords (Wisdom-Motion-Form) that link quite logically to the nature in each hierarchy. On this site the following abbreviations are also used as shorthand: SoF, SoM and SoW.
  • For the first hierarchy, again the ancient terminology is used because it is so established and widespread. The terms Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones are used. Note here also Rudolf Steiner proposed an alternative with more european spiritual scientific terms, but even he did not consistently deploy these either, given how established the ancient terminology is.

Planes or Worlds of Consciousness

Schema FMC00.079 (below) on Planes or Worlds of Consciousness gives an overview of various terminology sets used, incl. theosophical, rosecrucian, medieval european.

Dimensions of evolutions

Schema FMC00.093 on Three dimensions of evolution summarizes the 'Condition' terms chosen, comparing them with theosophical and esoteric christian terminology.

Evolution: planetary stages in the chain of evolution

Regarding the planetary stages in the evolution of the solar system, mapping to Conditions of Consciousness - see more on Overview of solar system evolution

  • they are called planetary stages consistently and not phases or periods.
  • Whereas one can encounter Old Saturn, Ancient Saturn, Saturn .. we consistently use the prefix Old and Future, as in Old Saturn and Future Jupiter, because it is important enough to avoid the potential confusion with the current physical planets. It is important to be consistent and consequently we use Future Jupiter and not just Jupiter as is most often done (though some text versions may still use bracketed prefixes with 'new' or 'future')

Planetary stage Earth: 'extrusion, separation or departure' of the Moon and Sun?

  • Extrusion is the strangest term of the three. It used in geology for extrusion of volcanic lava flows that reach the surface, and eg salt extrusion in plants is the process to separate salt through filtration at the root (like excretion).

Separation and departure are the most commonly used terms, however their link to the process of what happened does not lie contained in how we use the words today.

  • Departure is more like a ship or plane that is leaving, the 'moment of departure'. This does not seem appropriate.
  • Separation is like people in a relationship that are separated. That may be more appropriate given the fact the Moon and Sun will re-unite with the Earth again.

Therefore, although 'extrusion' may speak most to our imagination, we choose for separation because it implicitly contains the possibility of re-union, which therefore gives us a terminology also for that later stage. Hence we use separation and reunion and not extrusion or departure.

Epochs and cultural ages

This site consistently uses the top level term epoch only for the periods such as the Lemurian or Atlantean epoch. In the early theosophical terminology often the term root-race was used to denote this evolutionary period. Rudolf Steiner explained that this term is no longer appropriate for the current epoch, see Human races.

For the level below, the periods currently spanning some 2000 years, the term cultural age is used consistenly, and not cultural epoch or sub-age.

General remark

Continuing on how Blavatsky had established terminology for 19th century theosophy, Rudolf Steiner took over most of these terms as well as naming for the epochs, like Lemurian etc. Initially this was coupled to the spiritual concept of races (see more on Human races topic page).

However with the years, as Steiner made anthroposophy into a more western european own body of knowledge, he left behind the races and sub-races notion for the current epoch, and also terms such as Aryan for the current epoch (all from theosophy). The term post-Atlantean was a replacement for Aryan, but an unfortunate one because it asks the question if nothing better can be found than to say it's the epoch after the Atlantean epoch!

The naming for cultural ages is also problematic, as shown below. Steiner choose to focus on the epi-center of human cultural and soul development for each cultural age. But of course the issue is that a cultural age is a time period, and the cultural and soul development impulse centers in a certain geography, but there are developments across the planet Earth during the same time period.

Also the naming does not take into account a balanced terminology for the Two streams of development in the first ages, though Steiner does at one point explain he names the third age Egypto-Chaldean for this reason that there is a Southern and Northern aspect to it.

For these reasons it was considered to drop the geographical denomination from the name label of the cultural age, and just use the number sequence, like first, second, third cultural age. Assuming that the reader and student knows and is well aware.

Naming the epochs

from theosophy: Aryan .. became ... post-Atlantean, or Post-Atlantean or Postatlantean .. or Current fifth epoch

Naming the cultural ages

  • Ancient Indian, first ancient Indian, .. ?
  • Second Persian, Ancient Persian, ... ?
  • Egypto-Chaldean, Egyptian-Babylonian-Chaldean-Assyrian, Babylonian-Assyrian, Egyptian-Babylonian-Assyrian, Chaldean-Babylonian, Egypt-Chaldean-Babylonian, Chaldean-Babylonian-Assyrian ... ?
    • this cultural age is most often described by Rudolf Steiner as the Egypto-Chaldean, however he also uses many variants, such as Babylonian-Assyrian (eg Schema FMC00.444) and even Egyptian-Babylonian-Assyrian (1908-09-04-GA106). Sometimes he combines 'Egypto-Chaldean' and 'Chaldean-Babylonian' (1910-12-27-GA126). Note: the dual name Egypto-Chaldeanof this cultural age is because it has parts of both the Northern and Southern streams of development.
  • Greco-Roman, Greco-Latin ... ?
  • fifth post-Atlantean, or Anglo-Saxon-Germanic, current fifth, Germanic-Anglo-Saxon, Germanic-Anglo-American, Anglo Germanic, ... ?
  • sixth .. slavic, russian ... ?
  • seventh .. american ... ?

Bodily principles

See the Discussion area of Man's bodily principles on the term Wesenglieder and the choice for 'bodily principles'; direct link:

Man's bodily principles#Note 1 - Terminology

Human races

Over the last century the myriad of editors and translators did not make a distinction between planetary evolutonary stage, epoch and cultural age but used the terms stage/epoch/age in different and inconsistent ways.

The same thing happened with the different concepts part of the study of human races.

This section clarifies the different concepts, their meaning, and the terms in german and in english as used on this site.

For a pictorial presentation to the descriptions below, see Schema FMC00.546 on the Human races topic page. Further commentary in the Discussion notes section lower on that page.

One distinguishes:

  • root race <-> Wurzelrasse
    • these root races correspond to the main root from which the main human development starts in a given epoch, eg the Atlantean epoch.
    • This root develops from a 'sample' taken from previous age and planted as seed in a new epoch, see Schema FMC00.169 and others on Overlapping evolutionary periods. In such views one should never forget that the picture is much more complex, as the Earth is always populated by a mixture of various strands. So for example remnants of the Hyperborean and Lemurian 'root races' existed also in the Atlantean epoch, and so on.
  • main race <-> Hauptrassen (there is also the term Grundrassen)
    • the main races are the five main human races we currently know, as a result of the influences of abnormal luciferic Spirits of Form (SoF)
    • As a result, one should not speak of 'five root races', as really 'main races' are usually meant, for example: 1910-06-12-GA121 is a lecture translated with the title 'The five Root Races of Mankind', whereas this is not the case, as the lecture is about the five main races.
    • In the current epoch, with ever more intensive travels between continents, migrations, and mixed marriages, the distinction between these five main races is diffusing ever more. This is related to the decreasing impact of blood inheritance and the individuation of mankind, see Development of the I.
    • See also note: Human races#Note 5 - The current five 'main' human races - understanding the variance
  • sub-race <-> Unterrassen
    • the term stock race follows from the root race, they are also sometimes called sub-races (of the root-race) especially for the Atlantean epoch.
    • Rudolf Steiner describes that for the Current Postatlantean epoch, the notion of human race or sub race is no longer appropriate because of differentiation and mixtures. Therefore on this site we consistenly use the term cultural age for the seven cultural ages within the current epoch, and limit the term stock-race or sub-race to the previous epochs.
    • An illustration of the sub-races or strands of cultural ages is given by Schema FMC00.444 on Overlapping evolutionary periods
    • An example of very confusing and erroneous use of terminology is for example 1908-06-25-GA104 where the above terms are mixed.

The spiral development:

  • The german term 'Stammrasse' denotes the sub-race from a previous epoch that is the basis for the next root race, eg the fifth Atlantean sub-race provided the root or stem for the development of the next (current Postatlantean) epoch. See Schema FMC00.169 and FMC00.169A on Overlapping evolutionary periods for illustrations of how the culmination of one development stage is the beginning of the next.
    • sometimes also translated terms such as stem-race (or stock-race) are used. 'Stem' seems more appropriate then 'stock'.
      • Regarding terminology of the plant: The cut part of a plant stem (having roots and fixed to the ground) which is used in the process of grafting is known as stock. The stem is the main structural axis of the plant, while the stock is a support structure that holds the plant upright.
      • See also note 1 below.
    • on this site we do not use a specific term for this in a consistent way, as it would only make terminology more complicated.
  • stock is used in as a term such as racial stock, sometimes the 'branches' are also called 'offshoot'
    • Rudolf Steiner uses the image of a tree or grape stock that grows splitting into various branches. The meaning of the term is that the stock is the sample that 'lies at the basis' of further development, the basis taken into consideration when describing its further evolution. From this then sub-populations 'branch off'. Using terminology from the plant kingdom, this would be the stem from which the stelk branches off.
    • examples
      • "the racial stock which made its way through Chaldea ... on the other side, the racial stock that went Westward also came into contact with the remains of Atlantean civilization — actually the fourth subrace, the Turanian population — which had engaged in agriculture. A strange mixture was the result." (Turanian stream#1904-XX-XX-GA090A)
      • "So we have proved a common fundamental character among certain races. At the same time there are again differences between a southern and a northern branch of the common main stock. "(Germanic mythology#1904-10-25-GA051)
      • "the root stock of the white population" (1909-05-03-GA107)

.

Notes

1/ Note that depending on which copy of which lecture (typoscript or a version of the GA), even the German lecture texts are not following a strictly consistent nomenclature. In other words for main race two different terms may be found (Grundrassen, Hauptrassen). This is similar to the use of 'age' and 'epoch' to denote a certain timeframe period, here also people have not diligently applied a strict nomenclature.

Example illustration of how inconsistent terminology can cause erroneous interpretation and confusion.

In GA104 the term 'Stammrasse' is translated as 'root-race'. Now from a translator point of view that may be justifiable, however the term root race 'Wurzelrasse' is a different concept. In this case the fifth Atlantean sub-race is meant

"So waren die zwei Rassen, die auf die eigentliche Stammrasse folgten, nicht entwickelungsfähig; überreif sozusagen waren sie." "These two races which followed the actual root-race were incapable of developing, they were overripe, so to speak."

2/ Example of importance of correct reading and interpretation of terminology and what is meant:

The fifth sub-race of the Atlantean epoch - see Schema FMC00.105 are called in German the 'Ur-Semiten', translated on this site into the term 'Primal Semites'. Other terms that can be found in literature and translations for Primal Semites are 'original' Semites or Pre-Semites. For example 'original Semites' is used in theosophical literature (eg Scott-Elliott and Powell, see Atlantean epoch#References and further reading). Some sources try avoid the difficulty by coming up with a mixed term like 'Ursemites', but this neither English nor German.

Now see eg Human races#1905-11-05-GA093A (illustration in lecture) and also Schema FMC00.444 and its commentary on Current Postatlantean epoch. From these two sources it is clear that:

  • "The fifth sub-race which we call the Primal Semites and which had established its main residence in Ireland was the first germ of our present Caucasian or - as spiritual science also calls it - Aryan human race. A part of this sub-race - it was very unlike the modern Jewish population but was still called Semitic rightly because of certain processes - moved to Asia and developed the intellectual culture which spread then over Europe, southern Asia and over the population of northern Africa. "
  • the primal Semites, who were in no way similar to the present Semites

However, in contemporary culture, people not versed in spiritual science or aware of the evolutionary context, can only misinterpret the term 'semitic' when used on illustrations such as the two schema references mentioned above.

Mystery of Golgotha and Christ Impulse

see: Christ and the Mystery of Golgotha#On terminology

New terms

  • Eigenperiods is a new term to denote the characteristic time period corresponding to the influence of a certain level or group of spiritual beings, see Spiritual hierarchies and their eigenperiods. The term was inspired on the concepts of eigenvalues and eigenvectors in mathematics.

Various other terms and choices made on this site

  • initiate is used as the broader more neutral term, where Bardon uses 'magician' and Daskalos uses 'mystic'. Why? Daskalos and Bardon use these terms in their teachings, even if the student is not yet a magician, for example. In modern language of spiritual science and initiation, the term initiate or student-initiate seems more appropriate than to mix with the original terms used. This especially for reasons of consistency across sources, to not have the various terms appearing in mixed fashion. In any case references and/or direct links are always given to the original sources which deploy their own set of terminology.
  • in his lectures, Rudolf Steiner uses the terms 'Arabism' and 'Arabian stream' and 'Arabic culture' and 'Moorish' next to 'Islam' and 'Mohammedanism', to distinguish the broader cultural influence of that time with the religion of the Islam, though of course the two were related. Focus is on the Arabic cultural influence that came into Europe, hence on this site we use the term 'Arabic influence'. For the religion, we use 'Islam' rather than 'Mohammedanism'.

Names of individuals

Difficulties also arise due to names of individuals in different languages being spelled in different ways. On this site we try to be consistent and edit for consistency, but of course various original sources and texts are not consistent at the start. So as a result variances may and will still persist.

Examples

.

The first term in italic is the name used on this site, or better: that we try to use consistently across sources (as this requires heavy editing).

English

American or British English?

The FMC initiative, this site and all documents and publication, uses American English.

Rationale:

As of recent estimates, American English has significantly more speakers compared to British English. Approximately 225 million people in the United States speak American English as a native language, while British English has around 60 million native speakers primarily in the UK. When considering global usage, American English continues to grow due to its influence in media, business, and education, making it more widely understood and adopted internationally.

Illustrations

Introductory note

Below is a selection of just a few schemas that provide 'mappings' between terminology of various Bodies of Knowledge. The fact that all streams of spiritual science and initiation flow with strong lineage and history in various geographical areas and cultures across the different cultural ages and epochs, leads to an unavoidable complexity in the different 'sets of terminology' as they all developed independently.

Rudolf Steiner tried to provide mappings, of which the schemas below are some examples. However he went further in also using terminology used in ancient mysteries millenia ago (eg in the ancient persian cultural age) as well as the symbolic languages used in myths and legends.

Whereas this is definitely a challenge for the student of spiritual science, it also represent a great richness and opportunity to rise above any specific representation or knowledge framework.

Schemas with terminology mappings

Schema FMC00.093 gives an overview of the different dimensions that roll off in one another in the great cosmic evolution

Schema FMC00.079 gives an overview of the various terms for the different 'worlds' corresponding to different Conditions of Consciousness. More on: Planes or Worlds of Consciousness


Schema FMC00.273 provides an overview of terminology used in various teachings for the spiritual hierarchies. More on: Overview of the spiritual hierarchies

Schema FMC00.218 complements and expands on Schema FMC00.086, showing the main planetary stage for the development of each bodily principle; and adding different terminology used in theosophy, jewish doctrine, and esoteric christianity. More on Man's bodily principles.

Schema FMC00.416A: maps the Western, Indian Vedantic and Sufi terminology of Planes or worlds of consciousness and corresponding experiential states of consciousness, see Twelve conditions of consciousness.

Click on the drawing three times to zoom and navigate the enlarged schema.

maps the Western, Indian Vedantic and Sufi terminology of Planes or worlds of consciousness and corresponding experiential states of consciousness, see Twelve conditions of consciousness. Click on the drawing three times to zoom and navigate the enlarged schema.

Lecture coverage and references

1893 - C. J. Harrison

in The Transcendental Universe (1893), is able to take a step back when discussing theosophy and the teachings that were then newly injected in the world, and he provides clear explanations whilst also commenting on terminology.

Helena Blavatsky was the main channel for bringing this body of knowledge to the world publicly, and as stated by Harrison and Steiner (see the topic page for Helena Blavatsky) she was used and influenced by various parties for other agendas, which colored the output we are now historically left with.

It needs to be stressed ever again that theosophy and anthroposophy are nothing but an intellectual body of knowledge to describe and educate about spiritual realities that are way more complex. So one should not take concepts or schemas literally as one is used to in today's contemporary mineral science such as physics that are also called the 'exact' sciences.

This is covered extensively on: Notes on the study process. Furthermore, a good counterweight for this are alternative sources from direct experience, see for example: Spiritual science#A commentary on anthroposophy

[on Three dimensions of evolution]

I have adopted throughout the phraseology of Madame Blavatsky, and spoken of "globes," "rounds", periods, etc. for the sake of convenience, but it is necessary to caution the reader against a too literal interpretation of these terms. They must not be regarded as otherwise than symbolical of the various stages of cosmic evolution.

...

The words "globe" or "sphere" are very clumsy, for it is only in a metaphorical sense that they can be used to denote the centres of attraction in the highest and lowest stages of man's evolution.

...

everything exists in two alternating states, which may be described as manifesting, or active, and unmanifesting, or potential.

The Sanscrit words "manvantara" and "pralaya" are as good as any to denote these states, so we may as well use them. It should be borne in mind, however, that they are relative to the planes on which they occur. For example, when a human being is born into the world, he enters on his "manvantara" of earthly consciousness, and on his "pralaya" as regards his former state. Similarly, when he dies, he is in "pralaya" to the Earth and in "manvantara" to the world of super-physical concepts which, by the way, is not "Devachan."

...

"Devachan" is the only Tibetan word used by "Esoteric Buddhists" but they have utterly perverted its meaning. It is regarded in Tibet as a kind of ante-chamber to Nirvana. The Buddhists of Peninsular India do not recognise this state, and the Tibetans hold that from Devachan returns to the Earth are impossible. Evidently the "Mahatmas" are heretics.

[to position the last paragraph and phrase, see the explanation of the sources that worked and manipulated through Blavatsky, explanation given here: Helena Blavatsky#1893 - C. J. Harrison]

1913-03-14-GA150

It is not good to use the term “ahrimanic” without much ado any time we like, for this deadens us in our sentience, our feelings, and we then do not have the least possibility of still having words which, when we think or speak them, have the elemental significant meaning for us which they should have.

It is extraordinarily significant that we do not fling such things about in everyday life, for this will indeed gradually deprive us of the best thing, the most effective thing that anthroposophy has to offer. The more we have the anthroposophical terms on our lips under everyday conditions, the more do we deprive ourselves of the possibility  that anthroposophy becomes something for us that truly sustains the soul, enters deeply into the soul.

We need only consider the force of habit and we shall see that there is a difference if we use words such as “aura”, let us say, or “ahrimanic powers” or “luciferic powers” with a certain sense of awe, knowing we are speaking of other worlds.

If we always feel that we have to stop, as it were,  before we use such words, using them only when it really is a matter for us of considering our relationship to the supersensible world, it will be something different from talking of these things of the higher world on any occasion in everyday life, having words that are taken from those worlds on our lips all the time.

1918-09-08-GA184

the extract below was mentioned by a reader in a question, it's a computer translation taken from rsarchive that uses terms such as 'formation' and 'education' (!) to describe CoC, CoL, CoF (see Three dimensions of evolution). The below are just excerpts, the term 'education' is used 22 times, 'formation' 12 times in this lecture. 'Moon time' is used for Old Moon stage (of planetary evolution), 'volcanic embodiment' for Vulcan stage (!), and furthermore contains statements such as 'the fourth stage of formation is everything that happens in a creaturely way'.

This is an (excellent) example of how poor translation and inconsistent terminology makes something nearly incomprehensible, or at least very confusing.

first part

Yesterday, I explained that one cannot gain insight into the relationship between the ideal or spiritual and the material in the world, or into the purely causal natural order, without taking into account the nature of human sleep.

We started from St. Augustine's thought that he wanted to experience true certainty about the world in his inner experience. I said that we can no longer base ourselves on this thought for the simple reason that we have to know today that every human sleep refutes this thought.

For we could never somehow hold on to the idea that what a person experiences within himself is preserved post mortem, after death, and that what a person experiences within himself is truly eternal, if we had to look at it from the point of view of the time from falling asleep to waking up, as ordinary consciousness today looks at it. The ordinary consciousness of today sees how, during sleep, what is experienced within the human being dawns.

But now we said that as soon as a person completes the first step of looking into the spiritual world, he realizes that from the moment of falling asleep to the moment of waking up, what we call the human being's I and its astral body – that is to say, the human being's actual spirit-soul nature – is so connected from within with the nature of the angels, archangels and archai, as the human being is otherwise connected here during waking life with the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms.

Only because man's consciousness is dulled during sleep by the powers opposed to the world is he not aware that during sleep he is connected to the hierarchy of angels, archangels and archai, that they imbue his I and his astral body with their own being, that they hold and carry his astral body and his I. And we have explained how three things arise from this connection between human beings and spiritual beings:

  • Firstly, that we have the feeling of personality more or less clearly even in our ordinary consciousness. We know ourselves as an I. We would never know ourselves as an I with only what is available to us during waking hours. The feeling of free personality that continues during the day, while we are awake, is a kind of after-effect of what we experience during sleep. This comes from the fact that from the moment we fall asleep until we wake up, we are connected with the angelic being from the spiritual world to which we belong.
  • But the archangelic being, or actually a series of archangelic beings, is also connected with our spiritual soul being. And this is the reason why, when we are awake, we know ourselves as members of the whole of humanity, that we recognize ourselves as human beings on earth. Every human being actually has an awareness of their free personality, even if it is not entirely clear. The awareness that one is a human being in general is already more shadowy in the background.
    • Yes, certain philosophers, like Fewerbach or even Auguste Comte, have argued that it is a significant discovery for a person to come to feel that they are a human being in general, a member of the whole of humanity. And yesterday we heard Auguste Comte speak of the Great Being; by this he means nothing other than the human being. But Comte speaks from the standpoint of ordinary materialistic science; he does not know what underlies spiritually this consciousness that one is human, which lies in the background of our soul life. One would have no inkling of being a human being if that which is separated from our physical and etheric bodies during sleep were not imbued with the nature of the archangels.
  • And again, we are imbued with the nature of the archai from the hierarchy of the so-called Zeitgeist or spirit of the age. But what comes from this remains a rather dark, shadowy consciousness. Indeed, today's humanity does not have it at all if it does not feel part of history, of historical life. The oriental world view has not penetrated to this consciousness of living as an earthly human being at all. This has been the particular task of Western culture: to feel like a historical being, as a being – let us say for ourselves – who belongs to the 19th, 20th century. But the present materialistic consciousness of humanity knows little more than the date and some other external historical data – we will hear shortly how little these actually have any significance for real life. For only spiritual science leads us to recognize how the human soul changes from millennium to millennium, how human beings become different, and how we now look back to ancient times and know that the people of the third post-Atlantic age, the Egyptian-Chaldean peoples, had a very different soul and human condition than we do today. This sense of being at home in the whole development of humanity is an echo of our connection with the archetype, with the arche, during the time from falling asleep to waking up.

So that we should know that we are connected with this third spiritual hierarchy from the moment we fall asleep until we wake up.

Now, how does our life differ from the moment we fall asleep until we wake up, that is, every day, from the life between death and a new birth?

Every evening when we fall asleep, we lay aside, I would say provisionally, our physical and etheric bodies. These remain with us. There we are connected with these entities of the third hierarchy; when we wake up, we return to our physical and etheric bodies.

It is different when we can no longer return, when we have died. Then our physical and etheric bodies are apparently handed over to the driving forces of that which is becoming earthly. We know that this is only apparent, as we have recently discussed; but for our experience, our physical and etheric bodies are handed over to the spaces of earth and heaven.

During this time between death and a new birth, we not only come into contact with the beings of the third hierarchy, as we do in sleep, but we also come into equally intimate contact with the beings of the second hierarchy, with the Spirits of Form, Spirits of Movement, Spirits of Wisdom, and also with the beings of the first hierarchy, the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones.

Just as we, here in our human existence, focus on the world and, in the surrounding world, everything that is contained in the realms of nature appears to us, so we become aware, now not externally but internally, of the intervention of the higher hierarchies between death and a new birth. From a certain point of view, this is essentially the difference between sleep and death in a human being: that

  • during sleep we are actually only indirectly connected with the beings of the third hierarchy, but
  • after death we are connected with the beings of all three hierarchies, up to the highest spiritual beings.

Now, if you hold on to this, you will be able to see how man is placed in the whole universe, how man, as a microcosm, is connected to the whole universe, to the macrocosm.

Let us visualize what I have said schematically. Let us say, then, that after death our spirit is inwardly connected with the beings of the third hierarchy, with the beings of the second hierarchy, with the beings of the first hierarchy, just as it is outwardly connected here with the animal, plant and mineral kingdoms, from which it is built.

[astral body <-> H3 <-> personality]

But there is another connection. When you get to know all the things that the beings of the third hierarchy initially work on – they also have other tasks, but we are only ever talking about things in parts, aren't we?

The beings of the third hierarchy are individual beings that work individually and also through their work together through their effects, which bring forth something, create something. If you visualize what these entities of the third hierarchy work, it is

first of all everything, I say, that happens in the historical life of humanity. You can also grasp the thought in this way: No one knows anything of the reality of the historical life of humanity without having an inkling that what actually constitutes history is not made by human beings, but by the beings of the third hierarchy. The beings of the third hierarchy – angels, archangels, archai – actually make history, and man participates in the work of this third hierarchy by having his consciousness as a personality, his consciousness as a human being, as a historical being on earth, in the characterized way. So that man stands in the world is because these entities make up historical life, and man, in turn, has what he is inwardly and through which he is inwardly connected to historical life from these entities. The external historical life, which is recorded in popular history, which is essentially a fable convenante, is only a reflection of the inner historical life that is created in his development by the beings of the third hierarchy.

[etheric body <-> H2]

Now we may ask: What is the similar task of the beings of the second and first hierarchy, that is, the SoF, SoM, SoW?

Yes, they have a much more comprehensive task. We will initially disregard their relationship to humans. You can best imagine this task in front of the soul when you focus on your etheric body. Right, when you start from your self and go inward, you come to your astral body. Through your astral body, you are connected to the historical life of humanity. In turn, the beings of the third hierarchy, who make up the historical life of people, have an effect on the historical life of humanity.

But if you go further, if you go down to the etheric body, this etheric body is a very complicated entity. In today's consciousness, man is not aware of much of the complexity that underlies this human etheric body. But you do get a certain idea of what has to work in this ether body when you study “Outline of Esoteric Science in Outline”; there you are shown, in the succession of Old Saturn, Old Sun and Old Moon stages, that is, the successive embodiments of our Earth, how this ether body develops from the entire cosmos, and how the beings of the higher hierarchies participate.

If we express this in a vivid formula, we can say from a certain point of view: Everything in the becoming of the world that is now more comprehensive, with which our etheric body is just as connected as our astral body is with the historical life of humanity, is created and formed by the beings of the second hierarchy, by the SoF, SoM, SoW. So, to illustrate this, I will say: The beings of the second hierarchy create everything that has an effect on the human etheric body.

But this in turn gives rise to something else. When you wake up in the morning and immerse yourself in your etheric body, you actually plunge into the creature of the beings of the second hierarchy.

[physical body <-> H1]

And you also submerge into your physical body. Of this physical body, which is why the being of mystery calls it the temple of man, what the external anatomy and physiology reveal is really only the very, very outermost shell. One can only grasp this tremendous, wondrous structure of the human physical body if one knows that it is the creature of the interaction of the beings of the first hierarchy. When you descend into your physical body upon waking in the morning, you actually descend into the work of the highest hierarchies.

So think about how things are distributed in life: here between birth and death, when we are awake,

  • we first descend into our astral body, in which the historical life of humanity is effective.
  • But we also dive into our etheric body, the creature of the second hierarchy, in which much of the cosmos is effective, the etheric life of the cosmos.
  • And we dive into our physical body, which is the creation of the beings of the first hierarchy. And when we live between death and a new birth, we do not live with the creature, but with the creators themselves.

Now you have one of the considerable differences in the life between birth and death and the life between death and a new birth.

  • Here, you descend by immersing yourself in your physicality, in all that is a creature of the higher hierarchies.
  • hen you die, you descend into the hierarchies themselves. You go from the creature to the creators.

That is how things are connected.

And now, looking at what we have just discussed, let us ask:

key

in the below is added between square brackets what is meant, Schemas and links are added to clarify, and funny terms are underlined to show how difficult it becomes to read and understand with wrong terminology/translation

What exactly is our Earth? What geology and other sciences usually explore of our Earth is, after all, only the outer shell. What exactly is our Earth?

As you know, we have our physical body in common with the entire mineral kingdom. Because we share our physical body with the entire mineral kingdom, we stand in it in a part of the earth when we are awake. We share our etheric body with the entire plant kingdom, standing in a second link of our earth. We share our astral body with the animal kingdom. We have the I for ourselves. There we stand in the three kingdoms of the Earth, and our whole earth actually consists of the three kingdoms. This is the ground, so to speak, on which we stand, not physically, but with our human nature. But this cannot be seen, it remains supersensible. By standing on this ground, its lowest link is the mineral kingdom.

Now you remember from the “Geheimwissenschaft” [editor: Outline of Esoteric Science] that the mineral kingdom was not present during the earlier embodiments of our Earth; the moon [Old Moon] did not yet have a mineral kingdom, nor did the sun [Old Sun], nor did saturn [Old Saturn]. You only need to read about it in the “Geheimwissenschaft”. It was only on the Earth, during the fourth embodiment [CoL] of our earth, that the mineral kingdom came into being. I ask you to take careful note of this. It is a difficult matter, but it is an extraordinarily important one.

In a sense, three formations [CoL] had to precede it before the mineral earth could develop. We call these three formations [CoL] the three elemental realms [the elementary kingdoms or in short EKi with 1=1,2,3]; the mineral realm is the fourth. We could also speak in these terms about [of] the earlier embodiments [planetary stages of evolution]:

  • during the Saturn embodiment of our Earth [Old Saturn stage]: first elementary realm; [first EK]
  • during the Sun embodiment of our Earth [Old Sun stage]: second elementary realm [EK2] - the beings that were in the mineral realm at that time were earlier in the elementary realm
  • during the Moon time [Old Moon stage] - not the present time, the old Moon time: third elementary realm. [EK3]
  • As we progress to Earth, the mineral realm arises as the fourth realm. Man carries this within himself.

[what is meant is what is on Schema FMC00.143 and Schema FMC00.143A]

To stand in the mineral kingdom is to stand in the fourth formation [CoL].

[see Schema FMC00.298A on Earth rounds perspective, and/or also Schema FMC00.057]

We carry this mineral kingdom within us; only through this are we actually visible beings. But this mineral kingdom is also the only closed one in us.

Only when the earth will have reached its end, when it will have entered into a different embodiment [planetary stage of evolution], will man be just as closed in the plant kingdom as he is today in the mineral kingdom. Then he would stand in the fifth formation. [CoL, so on Future Jupiter that development for Man takes place in the fifth CoL - see Schema FMC00.203]

[note: in the Earth stage of evolution, there is already a 'pre-run' of this condition in the fifth CoL, see Schema FMC00.298A on Earth rounds perspective]

So the Earth will come to an end state and will arise anew:

[see Transition between Earth and Future Jupiter]

Jupiter time [Future Jupiter stage of planetary evolution]; man will then have his relationship to the plant kingdom as he has his relationship to the mineral kingdom today. He will stand in the fifth formation. [CoL, but actually also CoC, so both go and are correct here]. To stand in the plant kingdom means to stand in the fifth formation. [CoL is meant though]

There will come a new incarnation of our Earth, we call it the Venus incarnation, the Venusian age [Future Venus stage of planetary evolution]. Man will then stand for himself in the animal kingdom, not be an animal, but stand in the animal kingdom; as you know, this is different from being an animal. But to stand in the animal kingdom means to stand in the sixth formation. [CoL, but again also CoC, that is the cosmic fractal nature].

And then comes the conclusion, I would say, the seventh of all becoming. We call it the volcanic embodiment of the earth. [Vulcan stage of planetary evolution]. Man has then reached the highest level of his education [CoC, Condition of Consciousness], only then has he become fully human. To stand in the human kingdom means to be in the seventh education, to stand in the seventh education [CoC]. And in seven educations the life of man is complete. [because CoC=8 and higher are a totally different nature, that is why they are kept of the current solar system evolution as it is taught, though it just goes afterwards]

Let us take a look at the human being today. He stands, as we do, in the mineral kingdom; he does not yet stand in the plant kingdom.

When man stands in the plant kingdom, his whole life will be different. He will not feel as a personality, but as he feels today as a personality, he will feel as a human being, he will feel as a member of the whole of humanity. He will, for example, when he once stands in the plant kingdom, find it unbearable that he has a certain degree of happiness when someone next to him is surrounded by misfortune. Today, the human being feels as if he is closed off from other people by a partition. It must be so, otherwise man would never be able to develop his personality.

[this is a characteristic that we will already see in the sixth cultural age and the sixth epoch, it has to do with life-spirit or budhi being the sixth principle (spirit-self or manas is the fifth - again see fractal nature of cosmos or 'cosmic fractal']

But in the future kingdom of Jupiter [Future Jupiter], where man will be in the fifth education, it will be different; then it will be an absolutely unbearable thought that one can be happy and the other unhappy next to him, because people do not feel like an organism, as one says in abstracto. Now they do not feel as an organism: but that is an untruth, a deception, a maja. But the time will come when man will stand in the plant kingdom, where he will not find individual happiness tolerable when there is unhappiness next to him.

...

And in an even higher degree the individual human being will participate in the whole when he is in the sixth education.

And then especially when he is a full human being, a completely spiritualized human being, in the seventh education.

[as before, see higher, this can be read as the combined CoC and CoL, though apparently with education CoC is meant]

[back to current Earth]

Yes, but we have seen from this that, as we now stand on the firm ground of the earth, we as human beings, insofar as we are creatures, actually only come to the fourth education. [CoL for getting to this CoC=4 on Earth] We have the mineral kingdom, that is finished. The other kingdoms, as they exist today, will partly perish, and man will develop them in a different way: the plant kingdom, as I have described it. We will not describe the animal and human kingdoms today, but next time.

Thus, today, when man regards himself as a creature standing among other creatures, he stands in the fourth formation. [CoL]

But he extends into the other formations, for we have seen that even in sleep man is under the influence of the third hierarchy. This hierarchy is further than he is, and is already in the fifth formation [CoL] today, and the other beings are further still. So he extends into the higher levels of formation.

[what is really meant here is that angels are one level up on the CoC ladder, so at CoC=5 whereas Man is at CoC=4; the best way to visualize what this CoC-ladder means for our constitution are the two schemas 661 and 661 on Overview of the spiritual hierarchies#Interwoven nature]

I ask you to have the patience to really think through these subtle thoughts, because you now have to make the distinction between thinking of yourself as a creature and thinking of yourself as an independent spiritual being, which you are, for example, in sleep or between death and a new birth. Insofar as you think of yourself here in your physical, in your etheric body, astral body and I, insofar as you think of yourself as a creature on earth, you are in the fourth formation; but you reach into the fifth, sixth and seventh formations.

[through the third hierarchy, see the two schemas 661 above that illustrates this]

By not living only in your body, but also outside of your body, in sleep or in death, you reach into the other hierarchies, and these other hierarchies are further.

We can therefore say: If we regard the earth, with everything on and in it, as a created being, then it has reached the fourth level as a created being, and we have also reached the fourth level with it. But we rise up into the other spheres, into the other elements of formation, because we feel that we are independent personalities, that we feel that we are human, that we feel that we are members of the evolution of the earth, that we know that our etheric body is a creature of the second hierarchy, our physical body is a creature of the first hierarchy.

[see Eighth sphere#1918-09-08-GA184]


But the seventh education is not the end. Evolution continues, and by projecting into the higher forms of education, we also project into an eighth form of education, the famous eighth sphere. We can safely say: in a sense, by reaching up to highly developed levels of higher entities, we reach into the eighth sphere of education by standing in the pool of God or the spirit realm – as you like. But we reach into this eighth sphere of education with the finest components of our spiritual being. This reaching into the eighth education is a great secret, but we can still get an idea of a, I would say, very slight, not very intensive reaching into the eighth education, if we imagine the following.

...

Numerous such souls live in the present, and think of the peculiar situation of such a soul! Until the year 333, a soul could not yet come into this situation, because the spiritual world still extended into it by itself; but now, since that time, souls can be in a strange position: they cannot resist reality, in reality they are naturally in it, in what the angels, archangels and archai do, but they deny this with their consciousness, they only take up in their consciousness that which has been brought about here on earth by people themselves.

This is a case where people as creatures are in the fourth formation, because the fourth stage of formation is everything that happens in a creaturely way. So what men on Earth have done since Egyptian times belongs to the fourth education, but man himself rises above that, and due to the fact that since the year 333 he cannot consciously reach into it at all with his whole being, into what he actually reaches, due to that he even stands with his nature above the seventh level of education, he stands in the eighth level of education. So that today there is the possibility that souls are in fact in the eighth stage of education, but do not recognize it because they do not recognize the activity of the historical life of men through the angels, archangels and archai, but only recognize the fourth stage, so that the eighth sphere remains unconscious in them. This is an extraordinarily important fact.

If a world view arises from this state of mind, what then arises?

Man ignores his own reality, he does not admit that he extends into a high spiritual realm, although he really does extend into it, but he only admits that he is in the human realm. This state of mind has only clearly come to light in what I have called the industrial age in recent days. Only the fact that people are immersed in the whole of industrial life has led them to completely ignore the fact that man reaches up into the spiritual world within a world view and only to take into account the external deeds of men. That is something significant.

One cannot understand the present if one does not know that there are numerous people today who, with their world view, reach into the eighth sphere, and ignore this fact, that is to say, they bring all the damage to earth that reaching into a sphere of the world brings when one denies its existence.

For by denying that he is projecting into the eighth sphere, into the eighth stage of education, he shuts himself out from the good beings of that stage of education and delivers himself into the hands of the Ahrimanic spirit of that stage of education. His thinking becomes, instead of divine or spiritual, Ahrimanic.

afterwards

When speaking in spiritual scientific terms, one must point to the facts of this world in their truth. And the truth is, for example, that something like the materialistic historical view of Karl Marx, who lived from 1818 to 1883, that Karl Marx's world view is a purely Ahrimanic one. Its secret is based on the fact that only what is materially occurring on earth is recognized, that the way in which the human being's spirituality reaches up into the supersensible worlds is ignored, and that as a result of this ignorance, the human being falls prey to the Ahrimanic powers. For as soon as man excludes his consciousness from the worlds into which he reaches up, he falls prey to the ahrimanic or luciferic, in this case the ahrimanic, powers.

Now, we are faced with the fact that numerous people today advocate a purely Ahrimanic world view, fight for this purely Ahrimanic world view, and thereby also conjure up over the earth all that must come when the Ahrimanic order spreads over the earth instead of the divine order. Bentham's philosophy, of which I spoke to you yesterday, is in the first place an external theoretical expression of this Ahrimanic view of life. Marxism is such an expression, which is also already creative, which is formative, which has an enormous influence. And the indolence of bourgeois life knows nothing about it and has not cared for decades what elements of such world views have developed in the sphere of social life. Marxism is an extreme expression of this. It will continue to have an effect. What at first was only meant to be knowledge will become an event, will actually become reality. Only insight into these things, which in turn forms the will, can help in these matters.

Such truths are drastic, such truths are truly not suitable for mere Sunday sensationalism; such truths are that which is most intimately connected with the whole cultural life of the present day. And much will depend on people's willingness to recognize that which lives in their thoughts in connection with the whole order of the world. For in our time we have entered the cycle of time in which we cannot advance without falling into terrible catastrophes if we do not understand how what takes place in the human being relates to the evolution of the whole cosmos.

Such truths, when they are discovered in the search for truth – you can take my word for it – are initially disturbing. If you have a feeling for the impact of the great truths in the world, you also know the feeling of being disturbed by these great truths. It is not easy to live in the life of truth. Only the superficial might think that it is not disturbing to have to say to oneself: people, a great number of whom believed – and that is also true! – that they honestly strove for the truth, are permeated by the spirit of Ahriman! It strikes at the heart, my dear friends! Therefore, when such truths arise, one tries to come to terms with them. These truths are not there to be let in at one ear and out at the other. Nor are they there to be found in one's lonely meditation and accepted as sensations. These truths are not there for that. One must come to terms with them. One must be able to find how what one knows as world evolution, what is all around one, also agrees with what people judge, that something like that is there.

Anyone who, like me, has seen how many people there are today - now people can see for themselves through external facts - who live by Marxism or Marxism-like views, is faced with the necessity of taking a closer look at these things. One often says to oneself: Perhaps you are an illusionist after all! Of course one need not immediately doubt the whole spiritual world, but with regard to such concrete truths one often says to oneself: Perhaps you are succumbing to illusions after all! — The deep sense of responsibility towards the truth must arise precisely in the face of spiritual truths. Then one seeks to dig deeper and deeper. But there is indeed not a little, but a great deal, a great deal, which provides terrible confirmation of what I have just explained to you as the ahrimanic character of, for example, Marxism or similar world views.

When I spoke here some time ago, I made a certain demand of you. I spoke about the fact that the time as we experience it is actually an illusion, that time is in reality something quite different from how man experiences it, because man does not take time perspectively, I said at the time. Man experiences space perspectively; he sees the more distant trees smaller than the nearby trees. In reality, time is also to be seen perspectively. Events that lie far apart in time are to be seen differently than those that lie close together in time. But this is only the basis for time really being what the researchers of all times have regarded it as: time is the most important medium of human deception. We imagine, for example, that the beings of the higher hierarchies also flow through time as our own soul life flows through time: there is no truth in this. In reality, the essence of the higher hierarchies lies in elapsed times, but they work across from the elapsed times, as one can work across in space from a distant place, for example, through light signals or something similar, to beings in a nearby place in space. Time is not what people see it as, nor is time what philosophers like Kant see it as, but time in its reality is something completely different. And what man sees as reality is also a maja, a great deception. Above all, what we believe to be past remains, because we live in time as a deception. But it remains there; time really becomes something like space. And one looks at past events in the same way that one looks at distant objects in space, if one truly sees. Time is an illusion.

And further, spiritual science knows that the sources of other great illusions in human worldviews arise from the fact that man succumbs to deception with regard to time. If there were many physicists among you, I could express myself here in purely physical terms. I could show you with the help of physical formulas that just as the physicist introduces time - t, as he merely calls it - into the physical formulas, this time is only a number, and thus something quite unknown, not a reality but pure appearance. The only thing that is real is the speed, but the physicist regards this as a consequence of time. Since you are not physicists and probably will not get involved in understanding the matter, I will not go into it further either.

Time is an illusion, that is a profound truth, because time as an illusion underlies many other illusions of life. For example, if you apply time incorrectly in the course of history, you see everything in the wrong light. People in the first three Christian centuries thought that certain things that had happened were over and done with. In reality, they should have thought: the archangel or being from the hierarchy of archai who guided the events of that time is still there; it continues to have an effect in a different way. The past is only an illusion. It is very important for people to realize that time has a perspective character for spiritual reality, that they must be just as mistaken about events in the course of time – while they do not believe this – as they are about events in space if they do not allow for perspective. Consider how great the deception would be if you did not allow for perspective, if you regarded what is far away in space as having the same effect as what is close by. You are looking at a distant mountain. Your health depends to a great extent on the air around you; the air on the distant mountain does not, because if you want it to be beneficial to your health, you have to go there. As soon as we are dealing with reality in life, reality is essentially connected with perspective. But it is the same with regard to time. We live in the present when we do not believe that the more distant events of the past can be weighed as much as the near events. If we look at the Egyptian-Chaldean period in the third post-Atlantic period and only consider what the documents provide and register them as Torengeschichte registers, the fable convenue, which today calls itself history, then we make the perspective mistake. For what people did outwardly during the Egyptian period has no significance at all for today's life, but what the angels and archangels and archai did has significance; but this only emerges in the perspective formed by observation. Therefore, it is a principle, and not only today, when we all have to rediscover these things on the basis of anthroposophy, but in all times it was a principle for all spiritual researchers, that time as such is an illusion, and never was time counted in such a way by a real knower of reality that it was thought to be a truth, that it itself would have been thought of as a true reality.

Now the strange thing came to light, this Karl Marx of whom I have spoken to you, to whom millions swear today, albeit more or less in shades, more or less in formulas - but that's not what . Those who know these things know that thousands of people swear by him, or if they do not swear consciously outwardly, they do so subconsciously. This Karl Marx tried to answer the question: what are the true goods of humanity? What is it really that is achieved in humanity? — He answers the question in an extraordinarily original way, for it has never been answered before; human goods have always been considered in some other way than Karl Marx considers them. What human goods are was considered, let us say, for example, in terms of whether it had to be brought from afar, whether a lot of understanding was needed to find it, or the like. I once tried to make this clear to you by saying: Human labor must also be considered qualitatively; one must generally get involved in the concrete. We consider the elaborate Gotthard Tunnel. No one today who builds something like the Gotthard Tunnel is unfamiliar with differential and integral calculus, and differential and integral calculus is a Leibniz or, if it is better liked in England, a Newtonian - the two were arguing about the honor - invention. So one can say that Newton or Leibniz helped to create the Gotthard Tunnel. Yes, without them it would certainly not have been built! Now, the work of Newton or Leibniz must be evaluated in a completely different way than the work of someone who lays one stone on top of another in the Gotthard Tunnel. This is one way of evaluating human goods, human labor. The theory of the value of human labor, of human life, has taken various forms. Labor, goods of life, have been evaluated from the most diverse points of view, but never as Marx evaluated them. Karl Marx takes up a single element in his theory of value. For him, everything that has value in human life is only valuable because it is condensed time, namely condensed working time. Whether something can be produced in three hours, six hours, or twelve hours is the measure of its economic and global economic value. A large part of Marx's theory, which is so common today that it is possible to see it when someone from the so-called higher classes talks about work from his point of view, is based on this. A real socialist, a worker, stands up and says: “Please look it up in Karl Marx – of course he doesn't have the book with him – please, page 374, you will find this or that there.

One must really know life in order to be able to judge life, otherwise one will be amazed everywhere that this or that happens here or there. What happens happens out of the impulses of the human soul. But if one cares as little as people on earth have cared in recent decades about what has actually been going on at the bottom of the human soul, then one should not be at all surprised when the whole thing finally collapses catastrophically. But I have explained this for a special reason. It is the first time that the original has occurred, that what is only the source of deception has been made the standard of all economic values: time in the form of working hours.

So take this from a higher perspective. People who understand reality have always known that time is an illusion. Now someone comes along and says: But what has value in the world has only as much value as condensed working time is contained in it. Does that not mean in other words that your reality is an illusion and only that which is condensed time has real value? The deception is made into reality right down to the form of time by those who want to be completely materialistic, who want to stand only on the ground of reality, and reality is overlooked.

This is just one example. I could show you numerous things that comfort when one is dismayed by truths that, if one has a heart for the life of humanity, thunder into the mind. But when one then studies the matter in detail, when one looks at the hand of someone like Karl Marx, whose spirit is known to be Ahrimanic, and asks him: How do you proceed in detail? — then it is indeed the case that one comes across the Ahrimanic, and one feels: You may admit such truths to yourself. — I just wanted to give you one example here. It is not easy to have to say: Everything that protrudes into the world anachronistically today does so because people have left the spiritual world, which thus becomes their eighth sphere, and they only perceive the world in material terms. If you take this, then you will feel with all its weight what it means when I repeatedly emphasize: Today it does not matter at all whether a person says something beautiful, something that can be admitted, but what really matters is what comes from what one says or does. I must tell again and again how I have been repeatedly tested – you know I am not saying this out of some silly vanity – to draw attention to the fact that it does not matter what one thinks, but that one sees what effect one's thoughts have. You can have a thought that is absolutely wonderful. But if you have no idea how this thought will work in reality, it can have the opposite effect. I have been trying to make such things clear in various examples for years. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, I once gave a lecture in which I said – I will now summarize much of what was discussed at the time in a few words, because I just want to illustrate –: Today there are more people who are programmatic pacifists, talking very nicely about the leadership of humanity from their pacifist point of view. Pacifism has never actually assumed such proportions as in this time – so I spoke at the beginning of the century. And that is, I said, a clear sign that we are facing the greatest war of humanity. For people in the past did not think about human interrelations in such an unrealistic way as they have done within these circles, they only went so far as the content of their thoughts, and had so little awareness of the real effectiveness of what lives in the soul that one can only recognize it through the whole world perspective. This is only done in the age in which all the things we have been talking about have been spreading.

How is it that something that is no more than a train of thought, and a very unreal one at that, can set the tone for many people, a thought that can never have anything to do with what is happening? This is Woodrow Wilson's train of thought, Wilsonian train of thought, which is nothing more than Egyptian-Chaldean train of thought, which does not care that there is a spiritual reality in history, but only adds abstract thoughts to each other. It comes from all these peculiarities of our age. A future historiography will have to baptize everything that our time has produced in terms of unreal thoughts that bring about the opposite, in the name of Woodrow Wilson.

That is what is decisive in our world view, what must be decisive, and what must be considered not from today to tomorrow, but from the point of view of the whole of cosmology, from the point of view of being placed in it. He who answers such questions from the point of view that arises out of a complete world-view judges such people as Woodrow Wilson is, not from sympathies or antipathies, but judges as one judges objectively about something. But that is the anachronism, that very many people today cannot get involved in it, because it is uncomfortable to look things in the face. You cannot look things in the face if you do not research them in depth. This must be said of such souls, who today have no connection to historical life: they are souls who ignore what real history has been through the third hierarchy and therefore do not deal with the real impulses when they speak, but basically only with empty words.

This is a fundamental requirement of our time: that we come to terms with it and realize that, even if we have the most beautiful concepts that the human mind can grasp, the most beautiful concepts that are quite sufficient to explore the nature that is spread around us, we will never understand anything about history. For history does not unfold as natural life unfolds; history unfolds as the deeds of spiritual entities. This is what must be added to the other world views. From theocracy, as I described to you yesterday, people emerged by still remembering the old theocratic order during the time of theocracy; then the metaphysical time came, which essentially developed the civil service throughout the world; then the purely materialistic time came, the time of industrialists. This would lead completely into the unreal in relation to the spiritual, if it were not for the counterweight of working one's way back into the real, into the actual, which, however, can only be observed if one can ascend to that which is veiled for man in ordinary life in the present time cycle. We must learn again to speak of supersensible things if we want to speak of history. In the nineteenth century people often spoke of historical ideas. Everyone knows that you can't chop down a tree with ideas, but the followers of Ranke and similar historians believe that the historical life of humanity is brought about by ideas. We must realize that this time, the mere metaphysical time, must also be overcome, otherwise that world view, which is purely limited to the sensual, will become overgrown. Mankind must work towards the spiritual. It can only do so if it first works its way through the field of history, from the apparent succession of events in time to the real event, which, I might say, is so tangible behind the external sensory reality, especially in the case of history. Then, however, one will no longer create social or similar programs based on ideas that relate only to the external life, but one will proclaim one's social programs again based on the revelations of the spiritual world. But the programs that people create today are very, very different from these revelations from the spiritual world.

We will discuss this next time. I will continue these reflections next Friday; they cannot be concluded so quickly.

On picture language

1956 - Franz Bardon

from the Introduction to Initiation Into Hermetics (1956); the specific reference to 'picture language' (Bildersprache) appears in the foreword to later editions and explanations of exercises, where Bardon notes

These symbols are expressed in picture language to compel the student to think and develop his intuition.

1962 - Franz Bardon

from The Practice of Magical Evocation (1962, English 1975)

In the prologue to Part II (Hierarchy of Spheres), before the detailed listings of elemental and planetary beings.Bardon writes:

The descriptions of the beings of the spheres have been intentionally given in picture-language, because an exact description in human words is impossible. The student who has reached a certain degree of maturity will at once recognize the true characteristics behind this symbolic garment.

Franz Bardon through Otti Votavova

in Frabato, Chapter 7

Certain truths of the spirit can only be clothed in symbols and images, for in rational words they wither and die, becoming mere theory without life.

note: This is not a direct literal quote by Bardon, as Frabato is a semi-autobiographical novel written by his student/secretary Otti Votavova based on his narrative and outlines. Bardon explains through the narrator that certain magical truths can only be transmitted this way, because the moment they are put into exact, rational words they lose their power and become dead theory.

undated - Franz Bardon

from an interview/notes published after his death and in the foreword to later editions (foreword to the second German edition of IIH in 1957)

The picture language is the language of the spirit. Normal language speaks to the intellect; picture language speaks directly to the consciousness and to the subconscious. Whoever understands an image magically has already transformed his consciousness accordingly. Whoever only analyzes it intellectually has understood nothing.

in the KTK (Step III, p. 45), this is echoed, as Bardon describes symbolic keys as "vehicles for consciousness elevation"

Discussion

Note 1 - Language frames

Note: 'language frames' is a new term that is used on this site to denote what is described in this Note. It is derived from two other existing terms 'language games' (Wittgenstein) and 'frame' (NLP), more on this below. A new term is used because of its specific use for spiritual science whereby it is key to combine both aspects frame ànd language game.

In short, a tentative description upfront (not a definition): a language frame denotes

  • (a) an angle of perspective from which one views and describes aspects of a spiritual reality, using
  • (b) a specific descriptive language set chosen as appropriate for the contextual description and the angle of perspective. For example such language will be different when describing the astral world or the spirit worlds, the elements or spiritual hierarchies. The language of parables or myths is different than that from rational-intellectual schema presentations, etc.

Important: the word language in 'language frame' does not refer to current human languages like English, Spanish, Portuguese or French (to stay within the Western world). The human language could be any; what is meant is the descriptive nature and mechanism to convey meaning. The language format could be a short movie without words, or a metaphoric imagery sketch described in words.

Introduction

This note goes into the use of language in the building and description of a knowledge framework for spiritual science.

Knowing that:

  • the spiritual worlds 'above' are of a very different nature than the physical reality 'below' we as humans experience today with waking consciousness
  • nevertheless some concrete human language will have to be used as a communication method to describe these, meaning: a language developed to describe the physical reality experience 'below' with current sensory perception and faculty of thinking.
    • note: for language as a means to convey meaning, dependent on the state of consciousness, see also the Alphabet topic page.
    • Rudolf Steiner states explicitly and very often that he uses figurative descriptive language necessarily, for example when sketching previous planetary stages of evolution such as Old Saturn, Old Sun or Old Moon. Some example quotes: "Expressing myself figuratively .. you will understand me if I present this to you in images taken from physical existence" (1921-10-07-GA207) and again "phenomena in the spiritual world are not spatial like material objects viewed by the eye .. however we can only describe them in such ways resembling visual images seen by the physical eye or whatever other sense-impression we make use of in our description. You must bear this in mind in connection with all the descriptions I shall now be giving of what takes place in the super-sensible." (1923-11-17-GA231)
    • However others have described the principle quite similarly, e.g. Niels Bohr: "The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer .. but that doesn't mean it's not a genuine reality." and also about physics: "when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry because the poet is also not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections."

It is easy and in a sense a danger that people read and read and 'get away' with descriptions literally without taking this mapping step.

In other words, a language with quite different characteristics will be used to try and describe and convey the spiritual, which is why one will often resort to analogies, symbols, metaphors. Please see Schema FMC00.632 (and optionally Schema FMC00.479B). More on Notes on the study process.

Note

  • the use of words: 'describe and convey' is not 'translate', it is more of a mapping by evocation images and using metaphors, drawing outlines based on 'similarity' (of nature, or quality). Hence all texts are to be seen not as literal descriptions but more figurative sketches or expressions. The clothing of experiences with words, concepts and imagery is not a failure of precision, it's a necessary bridge to help building an intellectual understanding of the spiritual and supersensible perception.
  • it is also important to realize that the information stream with descriptions of the spiritual is infinite, and hence all available information is also by necessity only a limited view of the reality. With clairvoyant cognition one does not know everything in one go, exploration is continuous, iterative and never ending. To quote Rudolf Steiner: "in the spiritual world, investigation always has to be gradual, bit by bit, and even in respect to things that have been investigated with great exactitude, new discoveries can be made all the time" (1912-11-18-GA140; see Notes on the study process#1912-11-18-GA140). See also Clairvoyant research of akashic records
  • the use of physical languages also drives the needs for certain concepts. However whereas spiritual reality and perception may be more fluid and a continuum, concepts are outlines and denominated with boundaries and definitions. It is not the intention in spiritual science to use the concepts this way, but of course concepts is what our intellect uses for plain thinking about the sensory world experience with waking consciousness (or, with Mindell, 'consensus reality'). See also: Notes on the study process#No definitions - things are not so simple they can be treated with ordinary intellectual tools and the related Spiritual science#Note 5 - Intellectualization of spiritual science.

As a consequence of the above, historically various 'language systems' have been used to approach and describe the spiritual. Examples are

  • the language of reading the book of nature (and experiencing the seasons, the elements, etc) - even before there were human languages based on alphabets as we know them today
  • the language of stories (parables, ancient myths and legends throughout the ages)
    • "for enlightenment regarding significant turning-points in evolution, the truths that legends contain are deeper than those recorded in history. Legends show us how the forces and influences of Initiates intervene in the course of history, and they are not to be regarded as accounts of happenings in the outer world." (1907-12-02-GA092)
  • the conceptual-intellectual language of theosophy and anthroposophy,
  • the language of the sephiroth and tree of life
  • in the system of self-initiation things are described in 'picture language' as a veil so they can only be understood by those who have developed the faculty of imaginative cognition
    • "The picture language is the language of the spirit. Normal language speaks to the intellect; picture language speaks directly to the consciousness and to the subconscious. Whoever understands an image magically has already transformed his consciousness accordingly. Whoever only analyzes it intellectually has understood nothing." ... symbols are expressed in picture language to compel the student to think and develop his intuition ... The student who has reached a certain degree of maturity will at once recognize the true characteristics behind this symbolic garment." (Franz Bardon, see quotes higher on this page)
  • this has also been the case historically with the language of alchemy,
  • and additionally other the languages and systems of spiritual science corresponding to certain cultures and timeframes (eg ancient indian, gnosticism, esoteric christianity in the gospels, .. see e.g. Schema FMC00.588, and even broader Schema FMC00.293.

From a epistemological or methodological perspective it is important to acknowledge upfront (and be fully aware of the fact) that spiritual insights must be clothed in available cultural concepts, because this process is not protected against admitting errors of perception, interpretation or cultural bias. Descriptions using earthly language, concepts and images point toward spiritual realities and can offer different perspectives on the same spiritual facts, but they remain only descriptions.

Some considerations

- It is important to realize that the state of human consciousness has not been the same as we know today, so all the existing ancient teachings have a 'hidden variable' that we can tentatively map to what is currently described as the stages of clairvoyance.

Ancient cultures had innate clairvoyant perception of astral entities, hence the many gods; the world was viewed through other glasses. Earlier human languages (for example sanskrit, hieroglyphs, the jewish alphabet) were symbolic, with depth of meaning connected to a symbol, not empty meaningless characters as we have in our languages today. This depth of meaning has been stripped of and lost today. See more on this also on: symbols.

That this is a fact is not debated any more, and people have approached and described this with various terminologies, (to name just a few) e.g. Julian Jaynes (origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind), Jean Gebser of 'structures of consciousness' (archaic/magic/mythic/mental/ integral), Sri Aurobindo talks of physical mind/higher mind/illumined mind/intuition/overmind/supermind, and Ken Wilber speaks of a 'spectrum of consciousness' (gross/subtle/causal awareness). All this merely confirms the point and they mean the same thing, however the problem remains and no solution is offered on how to process (understand/translate/map) the different language games (see below).

- The multitude of existing ancient sources include various attempts of adepts through the ages to bring down and reflect clairvoyant research of the akashic records in some earthly language description, examples are the Book of Genesis (by Moses, on the creation of the early stages of Earth), the Sepher Yetzirah (book of creation in the jewish kabbalah tradition), the Book of Revelation (by the apostle John, on the future stages of evolution), other religious documents (eg ancient indian), and for example (the probably most ancient) Book of Dzyan.

- A further complexity lies in the inherent multi-dimensionality of the spiritual reality of the cosmic fractal: its nature is not as crisp and delineated as objects in the physical world, but more like a merged ocean of a liquid of consciousness with various qualities due to superimposed influences that can be described as coming from a multitude of spiritual entities working in different ways, eg from the astral world or lower spirit world.

Spiritual science simplifies these things by delineating and outlining them, a.o.

  • describing the nature of the different interpenetrating worlds - see Schema FMC00.679, and labeling the various faculties of clairvoyance (imagination, inspiration, intuition)
  • naming and differentiating between group souls, spirits of the elementary kingdoms, etc.

However all this remains in a way deceptive when considered by dry intellect in a 'physical world'-contextual frame of understanding. It remains that there is no relation between reading a textual description about how the water feels in a pool or in the ocean, versus physically being in the water and having the full experience.

- The ultimate problem arises in the higher spirit realm that stands above time and space, and so where the experience of individual identity as we know in the physical world is left behind, and all direct analogies or relationships with the physical world become nearly impossible.

In practice

In practice today, all these various 'language systems' make up one 'hotch potch' mixture of different things that are all combined and flowing through one another like colors in an aquarel (watercolor painting). All streams have their own language, which for others (non-insiders) may appear as strange gibberish, so one may speak of some sort of 'babylonian speech confusion'.

The earnest student of spiritual science hence faces the challenge to be able to develop an awareness for the different language frameworks, and develop one's own meta-representation mentally at a level above, so as to integrate and fit all elements into a cohesive whole, without getting hung up on the literal constraints and limits of any component or contributing language system. And fortunately our mind is an excellent (and the only existing) tool to do this, without stumbling over all the nitty-gritty literal logical details and apparent contradictions like a computer algorithm or all too pedantic person would.

Ultimately what matters is that one's mental representation (imaginative cognition in one's mind) gets as close as possible to the spiritual reality described in the various sliced intersections and projections of the multi-dimensional complexity, as these projections and descriptions are (by necessity) all constrained in different ways, and insufficient in their ability to describe that reality.

Note: the title of this note refers to concepts that fit the problematic described above, hence this will be used her as a help to shed some light on the matter using known perspectives. A short introduction follows in the next section.

Three perspectives

Wittgenstein’s language games

The 20th century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) put forth the idea the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used in a particular context, and coined the concept of a 'language-game'. The idea appears mainly in his later work, see e.g. 'Philosophical Investigations' (published posthumously in 1953).

Rejecting his earlier idea that language represents reality through a fixed logical structure, he instead argued that language is a set of human rule-governed practices that resemble games. A language game is any situation in which language is used according to certain rules and purposes.

Simple examples where one can intuit how language is used quite differently are: giving and obeying orders, describing an object, reporting an event, making a joke, praying, asking questions, thanking, cursing, greeting, calculating. Each of these has its own rules, goals, and social context (just as chess, football, or cards do). Note even the word game does not have a single essence: children’s games, sports, and card games share overlapping similarities.

Hence there is not one single overarching “essence” of language; there are many overlapping, family-resembling games.

The implication is that meaning is not something (solely) linked to and hidden behind words, but is related to how the words are used in their practical use within a community. Therefore to understand meaning, one should not just analyze abstract definitions but look at how words function in context, in actual life and a certain set of activities (as language is used for and driving human activity). In other words: how the language works in any particular 'form of life' (shared human activities, institutions, customs) and the 'rules' that come along the frame of context and activity.

Consequences? Problems naturally arise when people misunderstand another's game, such as a scientist analyzing a religious statement as a factual claim when it is meant to be understood within the different rules of religious discourse. An example is Richard Dawkins who, as an outspoken critic and atheist, ridicules statements from the Bible this way.

  • Note things are not simple, and the concept of a language game can also be used as a dummy argument or escape route. Building on the previous example, one could use it to say that a religious statement like "Jesus rose from the dead" is to be understood within the game of faith, which is not the same game as scientific investigation. Scientists, misunderstanding the game, treat it as a factual claim about history rather than an expression of belief or a promise of eternal life. This reasoning thereby leaves the resurrection as a fact completely in the middle. This technique is used by wikipedia, where it is accepted that certain phenomena exist in the world, but these are all categorized as 'pseudo-science' to put them to the side in terms of general credibility.

Therefore, Wittgenstein saw the role of the philosopher especially to not build theories, but rather to describe how language actually works, and dissolve confusions caused by misusing words across different games.

To conclude, some contemporary well-known examples of language games

  • social media (posts, tweets, memes, likes, comments): uses likes, emojis, hashtags, memes, and thread etiquette (tagging conventions, etc)
  • legal context of courts, contracts, legislation: words acquire technical legislative meanings distinct from everyday speech, and certain rules apply regarding consistency, interpretation and source authority
  • scientific language games: and language used for journals, peer reviews in research communities has certain rules regarding reaching consensus, empirical adequacy, reproducibility. Conventions include mathematical notations, and paradigms (eg force or speed in classical vs quantum mechanics)
    • note: when physicists to speak of electrons 'orbiting' nuclei (like planets?), electromagnetic 'waves' (like water?), big bang (like an explosion?), black holes, space-time 'curving', or the brain processing information (like a digital computer?), these are also figurative expressions pointing toward realities that transcend the metaphors. This is not dissimilar to descriptions of the supersensible spiritual reality. In both cases earthly language is used to describe a reality which lies outside our human experiential realm in the physical world and the related domain of space and time. Once outside this domain, our normal earthly language of human experience does not apply, but by necessity it is the only vehicle of communication we have to exchange thoughts and ideas.
Hermeneutics

from wikipedia:

  • Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of interpretation of texts such as biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts, so it is about the art of understanding. Hermeneutics has been broadly applied in the humanities, especially in law, history and theology. Hermeneutics is derived from the Greek word ἑρμηνεύω (hermēneuō, "translate, interpret") and the technical term ἑρμηνεία (hermeneia, "interpretation, explanation") was introduced into philosophy mainly through the title of Aristotle's work Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας (Peri Hermeneias), commonly referred to by its Latin title 'De Interpretatione' and translated in English as 'On Interpretation'. It is one of the earliest (c. 360 BCE) extant philosophical works in the Western tradition to deal with the relationship between language and logic in a comprehensive, explicit and formal way.

An interesting hermeneutic philosopher was Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) whose interests revolved around questions of scientific methodology,

Note Dilthey held Hegel's Chair in Philosophy at the University of Berlin and his advisors included Leopold von Ranke and Jacob Grimm, his Ph.D. students include Max Dessoir.

Rudolf Steiner knew and followed his work and referred to it, more in the Appendix of this Note below.

Dilthey was after a general theory of understanding or comprehension (Verstehen), to have a language for the human sciences (beyond using solely what was used in and for the natural sciences), so such language could be used for a broad range of applications such as the interpretation of ancient texts, art works, etc.

He divided sciences of the mind (human sciences) into three structural levels: experience, expression, and comprehension.

  • Experience means to feel a situation or thing personally. Dilthey suggested that we can always grasp the meaning of unknown thought when we try to experience it. An example is an artwork that is experienced, it does not come with books describing thoughtforms. But also Clairvoyant research of akashic records is such personal experience.
  • Expression converts experience into meaning because the discourse has an appeal to someone outside of oneself. Every saying is an expression. Dilthey stated: one can always return to an expression (especially to its written form), this practice has the same objective value as an experiment in science. The possibility of returning makes scientific analysis possible. He also assumed that an expression may be 'saying' more than the author/speaker intends because the expression brings forward meanings which the individual consciousness may not fully understand.
  • Comprehension contains both comprehension and incomprehension. Incomprehension means, more or less, wrong understanding. He assumed that comprehension produces coexistence: "he who understands, understands others; he who does not understand stays alone." See Mindell's notion of consensus reality.

Expression and comprehension for spiritual science is what this note is all about. The point is that much exists in the field of hermeneutics that studies this process because it known to be full of challenges even though it is sometimes taken for granted.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP)

Note: NLP is an acronym also used for Natural Language Processing (NLP), which is about linguistic theory, rule-based computational approaches, statistical methods, neural networks and today’s foundation models used in AI.

Background introduction

Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach in psychology that was marketed to be effective to change behavior/perception through language patterns. It first appeared in Richard Bandler and John Grinder's book The Structure of Magic I (1975). NLP asserts a connection between neurological processes, language, and acquired behavioral patterns, and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. Bandler and Grinder' methodology termed modeling was a mixture of many fundamental techniques borrowed from existing work by a.o. Milton Erickson, Gregory Bateson, Noam Chomsky and others.

Whereas the original claims caused a marketing hype, and benefits have been called pseudoscience, the valuable work of a community developing the paradigm and approach has brought concepts and approached used in coaching and business.

The basis of NLP is that 'context is key', the meaning of an event depends on its frame.

  • A 'frame' is the context, perspective, or set of beliefs that gives meaning to an experience.
  • Framing is the process of using these different contexts to change the meaning of an event or statement, which can in turn alter a person's response, emotions, and mindset. It involves changing how you think about something to change how you experience it
  • one core technique in NLP is 'reframing', whereby one changes the meaning by changing the frame. In NLP this is used to help people cope with criticism, overcome phobias, or simply see a situation from a new, more resourceful angle. Changing the frame can lead to different emotional state and behavior, and this be used for empowerment in interactions. NLP also uses the technique of certain 'default' frames to comparing two views on a situation to highlight a specific aspect.
  • other techniques: chunking, anchoring, meta-model questioning, etc
  • A well known expression in NLP is 'the map is not the territory', to denote that we should distinguish our map or description from the reality is describes.
Positioning comment

With a frame one can thus visualize a rectangular window from which one views a certain situation. Reframing is changing view or angle of perspective. Wittgenstein uses this same idea to connect a 'language game' to each angle of perspective from which one views a 'frame'. A mathematician looks at other aspects of reality than a poet or a lawyer in a different way, and they will thus different languages.

Hence here we have choosen the term 'language frame' to describe the various languages used to describe aspects of the spiritual reality from different possible angles of perspective (as in a.o. types of clairvoyant ognition).

Example illustrations of spiritual science

1 - Words and what they point at, per language frame

First, some illustrations were a word or term does not have the same meaning, depending on the tradition and context where the word or term is used. This to point to reasons where full text or keyword searches and algorithms will fail for spiritual science due to the distinction between word, thought and idea.

  • multiple name variants
    • the section on this page with 'Schemas with terminology mappings' already points to different sets of terminology depending on tradition. These are relatively clear and could be regarded as mapping tables to be used by any interpretative algorithm.
    • this pattern is more pervasive however, multiple name variants also exist as a result of the evolution of culture and language across centuries and millenia
      • an example is Nerthus or Hertha (Rudolf Steiner uses both, separately, but it is about the same cult and legend). Another example is the current term Druids and the variants 'Drott' or 'Drottes’ and 'Trotten' (depending on geography and culture). A more complex illustration is given with Schema FMC00.618 and the equivalent name instances of the Northern gods.
      • Variations on this problem are when a tradition (cult or legend) is referenced by one or more geographical location labels which are also not 'unique identifiers' (eg in the case of Nerthus: Jutland, or Rügen or Arkona)
      • a complex case example of this regarding archangel Michael is pointed to by Rudolf Steiner with the quotes in grey on the left of Schema FMC00.471A
    • the two Jesus children are denoted in different ways, as the Nathan/Solomon child, the Luke/Matthew gospel (where they appear), the priest/kings, etc. .. in other words descriptions are switching how they are referenced through the various aspects depending on context
  • multiplicity of meaning
    • along the same lines as the previous case (multiple words/names for one thing), most typical for spiritual science is the opposite, so one word/name for various things. The classic example are symbols where one word 'below' is a pointer that goes to many meanings 'above', see Schema FMC00.532.
    • parables in the Gospels by definition used a metaphoric imaging language with multi-layered interpretations/meaning; re Schema FMC00.504
    • The sun and the moon, may mean the father and mother (emerald tablet), the etheric and the astral, may link to Lucifer and Jehovah. Meaning will be depend on the context of what is described, and through what language system, eg mineral substances (Schema FMC00.542), organs such as brain and heart (Schema FMC00.034), two etheric streams (Schema FMC00.610C) or two types of astronomies (Schema FMC00.284), or as esoteric symbols together (in the cosmic script, as in Parsifal) (Schema FMC00.116).
    • mother may refer to the soul, the feminine, also to wisdom as in Sophia or the new Isis (Schema FMC00.694), or as a mystical term: something that needs to be inseminated when the human being ascends to a higher level. Examples are in the gospels with statements at the marriage at Cana, or at the cross at Golgotha.
    • certain physical substances are spoken off as representatives of the combination of substance and force (see force substance representation), eg silica/quartz/slate and lime/calcium oxides (Schema FMC00.423, Schema FMC00.467); or formic and oxalic acid (Schema FMC00.589)
    • an example where a term leads to confusion is 'stream', for example
  • figuration (metaphoric images based on analogy, allegorical representations)
    • when theosophy or anthroposophy uses terms such as 'races' and 'root races', this is not to be taken literally, this is using available terminology to point at something with transcends the physical, and the cultural connotations of what humanity did with the reality pointed at with the physical terms and concepts (a.i. racism, discrimination, ...).
      • end of the 19th century people accepted that there were five main races as a fact (see eg Schema FMC00.220). We know that because of all what happened in the 20th century (not limited to, but including nazism in Germany, slavery and discrimation in the US, apartheid in South Africa, etc), we are in a different situation in the early 21st century today. Hence sensitivity around the term can logically be understood. However the spiritual scientific concept (and how it was presented more than a century ago) could just as well be presented differently, as explained on the page human races, see eg Schema FMC00.546, where one could also use the image of river delta instead of the tree with root, stem and branches.
  • in the lecture referenced on Schema FMC00.154, Rudolf Steiner describes explicitly how alchemy is another language of another age that corresponds to other terms in anthroposophy
2 - Mapping meaning between language frames

Secondly, there is the challenge to map language systems and knowledge representations, because they are not congruent. How can different perspectives be unified, and is it at all possible to have a one-to-one mapping of meaning between different language systems or games.

A metaphor for this are the different theories in physics, all describing aspects of reality in a different way (general relativity, quantum physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics) yet in theoretical frameworks that are so different they can not be unified, and each frame has its own logical paradoxes where the limits of that frame are hit. See more on this on: Relationship between mineral and spiritual science#Inherent boundaries of knowledge frameworks (e.g. the Heylighen 1990).

An example of this in describing the spiritual is the meaning of the different versions of the tree of life, and how these relate to what is described in anthroposophy. This example is discussed in paragraph 2.2 on Spiritual science#A critical positioning commentary on anthroposophy.

The challenge here is not as much 'per concept', as terms càn be mapped, to some degree (without being sure they are actually equivalent). For example this terminology page gives examples of such mapping between theosophy, anthroposophy, vedanta, sufism, esoteric christianity. And much literature exists also, for example on the esoteric physiology described in ancient chinese and indian traditions; or mappings between the different streams of Buddhism that arose in various geographies with time.

The real problem is that knowledge may be organized and sketched quite differently, eg like different taxonomies classifying a set of items in separate categories based on different criteria and branches.

This is a problem especially because ancient traditions have always been a combination of experiential practice and a descriptive 'theoretical or knowledge' component. The language game belongs to the tradition of the experiential practice, this is the case for yoga, but also for tai chi and qi gong, etc. This is where it becomes debatable if the language game makes sense if seen apart from this practice. And this point is crucial as any student ought to pursue one system but not mix them. All spiritual traditions insist on this for good reason. If one follows different signboards all the time, one never progresses to destination.

A warning appears here with the fact that many have tried to go down this route and got lost in the swamp, an example is the stream of Guenon, see Impulses from waves of reincarnating souls#Impulse group IG08 - Traditionalist - Perennialist School. It illustrates the hubris of the intellectual trying to mastermind a complexity beyond the level of consciousness and spiritual maturity of those who approached the work. Knowledge systems of the spiritual are not just an intellectual puzzle. Symbols and imagery are projections with meaning that is implicit and lies at a higher level of cognition. What is meant is what is tentatively depicted left of Schema FMC00.632: one can study for centuries the projected triangles below, but never get closer to the reality described above; it is a problem of dimensionality (even though this is a very simplified way of putting it). Plato’s allegory of the cave is another metaphor: shadows and reflections (appearance, projections) can only teach us so much when we try to approach what causes them (reality which is spiritual in nature).

3 - Multi-layered and fractal nature

Without going into further detail here, a third complexity lies in the fact that the multi-dimensionality or multi-perspective nature of the spiritual reflects in multiple layers of meaning, like transparencies overlaid on a projector.

For now we will just give three example illustrations:

  • This aspect is touched on with the example of the meaning of numbers in the Book of Revelation on: Cosmic fractal#Note 3 - 'Cosmic fractal nature' reasoning. Also with a quote: "the Book of Revelation is an inexhaustible source of ever deeper study ... once one has one meaning, one should not cling to it but leave that behind, and so on" (1904-10-24-GA090A).
  • Another way to illustrate this is the fact that there is for example a historical reality and an esoteric symbolic meaning to it. Parsifal and Arthur were real figures, however the meaning of Parsifal and Arthur stories is something completely different than their incarnate lives, the castles where historical events happened etc. This multi-layered nature of the study is illustrated with Schema FMC00.118A.
  • This point is more generally valid to connect all myths and legends to esoteric meaning. For example the Trojan war: "Thereby is brought about the full union between the principles of manas and of kama on the fully conscious physical plane. It corresponds not only with what the Trojan War stands for symbolically but also with what really happened. The Trojan War did actually take place. Although it was a series of physical events, these events have a symbolic meaning as well, they are also mystical facts. The concept of mystical fact comprehends not merely mystical content, but a mystical content which runs its course outwardly on the physical plane." (1904-10-28-GA092)
  • and, with a quote: "all sagas and myths have multiple meanings and permit many points of view, their content is far from being exhausted when something has been said about them, again and again from different standpoints different things may be asserted in regard to their meaning" (1908-02-29-GA102, 1918-01-04-GA180)
4 - Leaving behind words

In the previous epoch and cultural ages, before the current human languages based on alphabets existed, symbols and the 'book of nature' were used in the ancient Mysteries. They are the 'primordial' language, because it is everywhere around us. The hexagram is there not just as a symbol, it is in the cell of beehives, the snowflake chrystal, etc. Man has two hands, five fingers on each a ten fingers and toes, etc. See Schema FMC00.551 and hence the Book of Ten Pages.

Rudolf Steiner calls this language the 'occult script' and also "a signpost in the higher worlds" whereby "just as the letter B is used in many different words, so the signs of the occult script have different meanings" and "the regions of the spirit world are beyond our physical senses .. in attempting to describe them we must have recourse to allegories and symbols. The words of human language are only adapted to express the world of sense. ... geometrical figures and symbols found as signs also in the great religions are living hieroglyphs of cosmic speech." (1906-06-08-GA094, 1906-10-20-GA096).

Today we use languages with alphabets to make words to label concepts, and then construct and convey meaning with these. Hence the previous sections focused on words as our default contemporary starting point, most easily approachable and popular for today's waking consciousness and culture.

However humanity is now on the return journey, 'the way back up', of re-connecting with emerging clairvoyance and using these cognities faculties to make sense of and function in the higher astral and spiritual worlds. This is why symbols (like mantras) are an aid and a language that is used in meditation to reach 'upwards'. From this one could see that - visualize a pyramid - once multiple language frames below have been gone through, studied, contemplated, experienced ... a convergence point lies above these different language frames which connects all of them, they merge in the astral and spirit world image, and this is exactly what is meant with developing the faculty of higher cognition, starting with imagination (leaving behind the tightness of space and concepts). This is the path towards is the actual spiritual experience of the 'idea', where we will find back these archetypes. This is the reason why this language of symbols is not visualized as part of the blue horizontals on Schema FMC00.703, because it really lies (or have their function, meaning) a level above these and are used or belong (on the right as part of the Schema) in the process of contemplation and meditation.

Revisiting and taking a step back

At this point, the exposé above has sufficiently sketched the problem space, its complexity and challenges. So before going further it is important to ask the question of 'why' we try to achieve 'what', in other words: 'start with the end in mind'.

The world population and its cultures and geographies have many traditions, and historical esoteric traditions. This is no different that the different languages and histories each culture has. So there is no need in se to unify them or prove they describe the same, each stream functions well on its own to provide support and guidance to those souls karmically attracted to or belonging to that stream.

A second perspective is the technological perspective of trying to have AI computer algorithms 'having a crack' at this'. The starting point was the open question to explore if and how technology mightassist the student of spiritual science, by offering support. (Note: this is the 'knife question' : a knife can be used for good and bad uses (cut food or kill someone), here the question is how technology can be used for the cause of the spiritual worldview and future.)

Concluding the note at this point:

  • a first conclusion is that scoping is key, and it is best to stay within one language game, such as anthroposophy, and not try to tackle all that exists (all past indian, chinese, hebrew traditions etc).
  • A second conclusion is that the language game issue is inherent to and still appears within anthroposophy, where it represents a richness: Rudolf Steiner deliberately laid out connections between traditions as a way to show humanity's lineage, and the fact it is always the same wine in different bottles: the same spiritual reality being described in different language systems. However, the 25 years of teachings by Rudolf Steiner include the variety of terms that can be bewildering for students. An example is when 'kundalini fire' is used for buddhi or life-spirit, or other examples of theosophical terminology that coexist with various other terms.

As a temporary conclusion, this note tried to raise the awareness to this for the student, so this aspect can be taken along consciously and explicitly in scope of the study approach.

As a picture is worth a thousand words, the idea elaborated above is illustrated with Schema FMC00.703.

Besides the 'theory' laid out in this note, there is also an accompanying concrete example that has been worked out to illustrate. It is recommended to read this alongside. See: Current Postatlantean epoch#Note 4 - About 'the great goodbye'

Additional notes

  • The above is also relevant in broader considerations about the spiritual scientific worldview as a body of knowledge. What comes from sources of supersensible perception should not be confounded with absolute wisdom or philosophical speculation or mathematical correctness. A language always remains a means of expression about a reality, as the NLP phrase goes: "the map is not the territory".
  • An interesting example complicating what is covered in this note can already be perceived just by titles of books. A title is an important label, because the few works convey an impression, like a flag denoting the contents of what a ship is carrying. The point is brought up because by extension this goes to a much larger degree on texts that are edited and translated over a century or more by so many different generations of people in different contexts.
    • example 1: Rudolf Steiner's foundational work is called by himself (also referring to it in his autobiography this way) as 'The Philosophy of Freedom' (also the title in early English translations up to the 1960s). The however it became 'Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path' and 'The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity.
      • issue: Translators felt they need to change the title, who knows what else along the way in the whole book! Whereas the original title and the whole work turns around the word and concept of true Freedom, that word just disappeared from the title! Instead the world spiritual was now added, or a term meaningless for the wide audiences 'intuitive thinking', whereas the book is actually about epistemology/philosophy and not about the spiritual path or activity. For this, explicitly, see the later books KHW and OES.
      • Steiner himself never changed the German title. The variations exist only in English translation, reflecting ongoing debates about how 'best' to communicate the book's 'essence' to English-speaking audiences. For the coloring that comes through the process, unwanted or more consciously, see also Spiritual science#Note 5 - Intellectualization of spiritual science.
    • example 2: Franz Bardon's foundational first book has as original title in German was and still is 'Der Weg zum wahren Adepten' which translates as 'The way to the true adept' or 'The way to true adepthood'. Originally the title that Bardon had conceived for this book was 'Die Pforte zur wahren Einweihung' or 'The gate to true initiation', but this title had already been taken. 'Die Pforte der Einweihung' is the title of the first mystery drama by Rudolf Steiner. However the first English translator (Radspieler) came up with 'Initiation into Hermetics' (re Schema FMC00.148A) and since then the book is known with this title, or abbreviated the acronym IIH.
      • issue: hermetics is a spiritual stream, and is thus not a neutral term but one that is loaded and perceived as foreign by other streams. That really does not help, it puts up a whole blockage, which is exactly the opposite of what Bardon intended by keeping his book neutral in all regards with regards to culture, religion or spiritual stream.

Appendix: Reference extracts

Niels Bohr

selection of quotes by physicist and 1922 Nobel Laureate Niels Bohr (1885-1962)

and

I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary.

The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer.

But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality.

And splitting this reality into an objective and a 'subjective' side won’t get us very far.

and

We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.

On descriptive language
1923-11-17-GA231

You must understand, of course, that perception of the spiritual is quite different from perception of an object in the world of sense.

For instance, those who are endowed with the faculty of spiritual vision will say: “Yes, I saw the phenomenon, but I could not tell you anything about the size of it.”

The phenomena of the spiritual world are not spatial in the sense that a material object presented to the eye is spatial. Nevertheless, we can only describe them in such a way that they seem to resemble a visual image seen by the physical eye — or whatever other sense-impression we make use of in our description.

You must bear this in mind in connection with all the descriptions I shall now be giving of what takes place in the super-sensible.

Rudolf Steiner's coverage of Dilthey

Rudolf Steiner refers to Dilthey already in the introduction of 1891-GA003 (note 10: W. Dilthey reference to o.a. 'Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften' (1883), especially the introductory chapters dealing with the interrelation of the theory of cognition and the other sciences) It is clear that he was following the work of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), not surprisingly if one reads Dilthey's 'lineage' and thoughts, but although he did cover Dilthey in his work (see examples below) it appears that after Dilthey's death, or by 1917, Rudolf Steiner had concluded this work and approach (and that of others) was no longer sufficient to counter/convince the demands of the time.

1903-10-10-GA068C

It is natural that our studies, whatever else they may offer, initially make us uncertain; and all the more so because every study must be one-sided.

Dilthey's “Introduction to the Spiritual Sciences” shows that we can only ever see the whole from individual perspectives.

How do we go about overcoming these unavoidable limitations? How do we move from one-sidedness to all-sidedness?

The most extensive and interesting coverage is in:

1914-GA018 Part 2, Ch. 7

The element of thought seemed not strong enough to engender an activity that could explain the being and the meaning of the world. By contrast, the natural scientific mode of conception demanded a penetration into the core of the soul that rested on a firmer ground than thought can supply.

Within this search and striving the attempts of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) take a significant position. In writings like his Introduction to the Cultural Sciences, and his Berlin Academy treatise, Contributions to the Solution of the Problem of Our Belief in the Reality of the External World and Its Right (1890), he offered expositions that are filled with all the philosophical riddles that weigh on the modern development of world conception.

To be sure, the form of his presentation, which is given in the modern terminology used by scholars, prevents a more general impression being created by what he has to say. It is Dilthey's view that through the thoughts and imaginations that appear in his soul Man cannot even arrive at the certainty that the perceptions of the senses correspond to a reality independent of Man. Everything that is of the nature of thought, ideation and sense perception is picture. The world that surrounds man could be a dream without a reality independent of him if he were exclusively dependent on such pictures in his awareness of the real world. But not only these pictures present themselves in the soul. In the process of life the soul is filled with will, activity and feeling, all of which stream forth from it and are recognized as an immediate experience rather than intellectually. In willing and feeling the soul experiences itself as reality, but if it experienced itself only in this manner, it would have to believe that its own reality were the only one in the world. This assumption could be justified only if the will could radiate in all directions without finding any resistance. But that is not the case. The intentions of the will cannot unfold their life in that way. There is something obtruding itself in their path that they have not produced but that must nevertheless be accepted by them.

To “common sense” such a thought development of a philosopher can appear as hairsplitting. The historical account must not be deflected by such judgment. It is important to gain an insight into the difficulty that modern philosophy had to create for itself in regard to a question that seems so simple and in fact superfluous to “common sense,” that is, if the world man sees, hears, etc., may rightly be called real. The “I” that had, as shown above in our historical account of the development of philosophical world riddles, separated itself from the world, strives to find its way back into the world from what appears in its own consciousness as a state of loneliness.

It is Dilthey's opinion that this way cannot be found back into the world by saying that the soul experiences pictures (thoughts, ideas, sensations), and since these pictures appear in our consciousness they must have their causes in a real external world. A conclusion of this kind would not, according to Dilthey, give us the right to speak of a real external world, for such a conclusion is drawn within the soul according to the needs of this soul, and there is no guarantee that there really is in the external world what the soul believes in following its own needs. Therefore, the soul cannot infer an external world; it would expose itself to the danger that its conclusion might have a life only within the soul but without any significance for an external world. Certainty concerning an outer world can be gained by the soul only if this external world penetrates into the inner life of the “I” so that within this “I” not only the “I” but also the external world itself unfolds its life.

This happens, according to Dilthey, when the soul experiences in its will and its feeling something that does not spring from within. Dilthey attempts to decide from the most self-evident facts a question that is for him a fundamental problem of all world conception. A passage like the following may illustrate this:

...

The soul searches for world experiences in itself through which it participates with its experience in an element that it cannot reach through the mediation of the mere physical organs.

Although Dilthey's mode of reflection may appear to be quite unnecessary, his efforts must be considered as belonging to the same current of the philosophical development. He is intent on finding an element within the soul that does not spring from the soul but belongs to an independent realm. He would like to prove that the world enters the experience of the soul.

Dilthey does not believe that such an entrance can be accomplished by the thought element. For him, the soul can assimilate in its entire life content, in will, striving and feeling, something that is not only soul but part of the real external world. We recognize a human being in our soul as real not by forming a representative thought picture of the person we see before us, but by allowing his will and his feeling to enter into our own will and sentiment.

Thus, a human soul, in Dilthey's opinion, acknowledges a real external world not because this outer world conveys its reality through the thought element, but because the soul as a self-conscious I, experiences inwardly in itself the external world. In this manner he is led to acknowledge the spiritual life as something of a higher significance than the mere natural existence. He produces a counterbalance to the natural scientific mode of conception with his view, and he even thinks that nature as a real external world can be acknowledged only because it can be experienced by the spiritual part of our soul. The experience of the natural is a subdivision of our general soul experience, which is of a spiritual nature, and spiritually our soul is part of a general spiritual development on earth. A great spiritual organism develops and unfolds in cultural systems in the spiritual experience and creative achievement of the various peoples and ages. What develops its forces in this spiritual organism permeates the individual human souls. They are embedded in the spiritual organism. What they experience, accomplish and produce receives its impulses not from the stimulation's of nature, but from the comprehensive spiritual life.

Dilthey's mode of conception is full of understanding for that of natural science. He often speaks in his discussions of the results of the natural scientists, but, as a counterbalance to his recognition of natural development, he insists on the independent existence of a spiritual world. Dilthey finds the content of a science of the spiritual in the contemplation of the cultures of different peoples and ages.

However a few years later he states that "in his philosophical research Wilhelm Dilthey was on his way to the science of the senses that I have sketched out here, but that he could not attain his goal because he did not push through to a complete elaboration of the pertinent mental pictures.", or with another translation:

1917-GA021 Ch 5.

If this were less frequently ignored, it would be recognised that anthroposophy has two aspects; not only the one that people usually dub “mystical”, but also the other one, the one that conduces to investigations not less scientific than those of natural science, but in fact more scientific, since they necessitate a more refined and methodical habit of conceptualisation than even ordinary philosophy does. I suspect that Wilhelm Dilthey was tending, in his philosophical enquiries, towards the doctrine I have outlined here concerning the senses; but that he was unable to achieve his purpose because he never reached the point of sufficiently elaborating the requisite ideas.

and along the same lines that same year he writes that "all that has been achieved by brilliant men as Dilthey, Brentano and others ... I recognize it fully. I value all these personalities; but, the ideas which they have developed are too weak to hold their ground against the results of today's scientific thinking." (1917-02-15-GA066)

Note 2 - A selection of the top awkward and confusing terms in anthroposophy and theosophy

The intention of this note is strictly constructive, in order to aid students, resolve confusion and improve terminology choices.

1 - the phantom 

see: Cleansed phantom and Human physical body

... for some resurrection body, but that's only in one context ... better? ... physical form body perhaps?

quote from someone "always found this term strange and somewhat confusing, irritating ... somehow it evokes an association like it's a shadow of something"

2 - the double 

see: The double

unfortunately a standard term in esoteric literature, also used by Daskalos etc

3 - christ in the etheric

see: Christ in the etheric

... could or should better be 'second coming'  though one can imagine that in certain cases "Christ in the etheric" doesnt refer to the second coming but just how it is experienced, whereas second coming refers to a timing, time period

4 - etheric

... so many people have no idea what is really meant in terms of reality to relate to, it's very confusing ... even though one has to leave the elementary kindergarten introduction separately .. still this remains with many advanced anthroposophists. Sure one understands intellectually where to place it conceptually, but it is not clear what exactly is meant, someone asked "where is the etheric world" as Steiner only mentions physical, astral and spirit worlds".

5 - causal body 

see: Structure of Man between death and a new birth#Causal body and Man's higher triad

less used by Steiner outside the first years .. a term coming from theosophy .. but how materialistic a combination of both cause and body!

Related pages

References and further reading

Glossaries and lexicons

see further for Lexicons also: Navigating anthroposophical resources#Indexes and Lexicons

  • Gerhard Wehr
    • Wörterbuch der Esoterik (1989)
    • Das Lexikon der Spiritualität (2006)
  • Henk van Oort
    • Lexicon Antroposofie (2010)
    • Anthroposophy A-Z: A Glossary of Terms Relating to Rudolf Steiner's Spiritual Philosophy (2011)
Retrieved from "https://anthroposophy.eu/w/index.php?title=Terminology&oldid=33570"
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki