Topic on Talk:Spiritual science

Hello,

My name is Greg, and I am new here to the FMC movement. It is an honor to be able to share questions and receive feedback from similar souls on a path of spiritual investigation and growth.

It has come to mind recently, of an interest to understand spiritual science from an observable perspective. That is, to see by example, who a spiritual scientist is when compared to simply reading about the subject matter. For example, it is one thing to talk about a picture of a flame or fire, then it is to see such a phenomenon in real time.

My question for the discussion is this: who would you consider a contemporary spiritual scientist and what qualities and practices would they exhibit in order to be considered in harmony with spiritual science?

One person I have recently begun reading, is Thomas Mayer - "Answering the Call of the Elementals: Practices for Connecting with Nature Spirits".

One could consider him a spiritual scientist under the premise of his work in developing relationships or dialogue with elementals through spiritual exercises that expand upon his knowledge of them, and whereby brings their voice into the conversation by further adding to their nature and also, what they have to share. In this regard, his work helps to expand upon a spiritual worldview and bring one into repeatability of dialogue.

But of course, spiritual science is diverse, which is why I thought having an outline of qualifications to consider when it comes to practicing spiritual science could be helpful in separating the sheep from the goats - or in this case, understanding what the "field" of spiritual science looks like today for the purpose of helping one grow in the right direction and not get lost in belief or intellectualism.

Thank you, Greg

Dear Greg, first of all, thank you posting this question.

I believe the question is one of universal importance, so it's worthwhile to document it here so we have a basis for reference on this topic going forward. Many people ask themselves this question, ponder over it and one can see it coming back also in other forums.

In the below, I have taken the liberty to combine the above with how you phrased the question in our earlier mail exchange.

I would like to structure this based on the four related elements I saw in your question:

1 - understand spiritual science from an observable perspective; understand what embodying the spiritual scientist worldview looks and feels like

2 - qualify who a spiritual scientist is (when compared to simply reading about the subject matter. For example, it is one thing to talk about a picture of a flame or fire, then it is to see such a phenomenon in real time). As spiritual science is diverse .. having an outline of qualifications to consider could be helpful in separating the sheep from the goats. How does one qualify as a spiritual scientist

3 – examples of who would you consider a contemporary spiritual scientist and what qualities and practices would they exhibit in order to be considered such.

4 - goal and intention: to use the above as a basis for one’s personal direction and growth in the ‘right’ direction (and not get lost in belief or intellectualism) ...  how can one connect with all existing material and contribute something of value in return?

Note I deliberately take a step back here first so we can jump further, because a rich discussion may take us in many directions, and the goal here is not to answer a genuine question briefly in two or three lines, but make sure to answer it in extenso.

Some people are concise, other use many words. As I tend to take a question seriously, I usually end up in the second category. In the below, I’d would like to just share what immediately springs to mind when reading your question. I write them here as an un-edited train of thoughts, and will try to tweak, structure or expand on this in further edits. I apologize in advance if it becomes lengthy once I’m on a roll. So here goes.

Many angles of thought come up when considering your question, they are like different streets we could walk into and explore

1) First, when we use the word science, we are very much stuck by habit to what the word means in today’s world with physical mineral science. So it’s worthwhile to first develop a good understanding what the term encompasses, as in the scientific method and epistemology.

Rudolf Steiner describes this by juxtaposing the current scientific method as originating with Bacon, versus Goethean science. The philosophical underlying foundations show a similar duality with Kant (current mineral science) vs Hegel (who includes the observer and consciousness experience). This insight is quite important as it’s foundational for the discussion. See also Top five problems with current science and Relationship between mineral and spiritual science.

It would carry us to far here, but a related aspect is to understand how science paradigms work, and the limits of any knowledge framework or representation (eg Popper, Kuhn etc).

2) That being said, we cannot transpose the way how our current mineral science works to spiritual science, plainly because of the nature of the beast (see also Cosmic fractal). It's different. The spiritual reality is not like the mineral, like physical matter. The senses, the dimensionality, it just does not work like in space and time, as we experience it with another type and quality of consciousness. This is a big step to take. Because one may want to have expectations to re-apply or have the same way of working in the spiritual as in the mineral science, but that is not possible. That is why Rudolf Steiner explicitly did not want to work with definitions, why he opposed simple summaries, etc. Another street or alley we could explore and expand on.

A good place to start here practically is the 'Notes on the study process' on Tools and practical site info#About the study process and working spiritual science.

From the above follows immediately that a major challenge lies in the translation, the mapping into our mundane language, what one experiences. Challenge one is to have a balanced faculty (see next point), the second is the ability to retain the experience in consciousness and translate it for re-use. More on this below.

3) A.P. Shepard wrote a booklet whereby he called Rudolf Steiner the ‘scientist of the invisible', and Steiner himself used the terms theosophy and anthroposophy, but also spoke of this as spiritual science. He used this term for good reason, because as a trained scholar he wanted to have the spiritual worldview being taken seriously.

In today’s modern world, the rigour of a scientific approach is welcome and needed as a protection to much hot air and waffling about the spiritual. Already in Steiner’s time theosophists came up with a materialistic version of the truly spiritual (eg Leadbeater book on the atom, etc), there was the wave of ‘spiritism’ in the 19th century. In the 20th century we got ‘new age’ spirituality, etc. .. people have a hard time making the distinction between the truth and genuine valuable sources and the mass of nonsensical information that is available and growing every instant. We could go down this street covering this differentiation. Discernment is an important spiritual faculty of the consciousness soul.

And briefly on repeatability and consistency.

• Because in the spiritual the human being microcosm is an integral part of the macrocosm, the apparatus for experiences, experiments and reporting is our Personality and Individuality with its specific elemental balance (in structure and make up). An example of repeatability is illustrated with Schema FMC00.487. Spiritual initiation exercises provide a clear description of the goal that needs to be reached before moving on to the next exercise. That way one gets a broad gradient or metric for progress along spiritual development. Thousands of people worldwide are following this system, the schema just shows a small sample of more then 20 years ago. The system works, and since then many forums and books have seen the light.
• The element that struck me as crucial from the beginning is consistency. What makes the spiritual a science is that numerous sources over millenia have reported on the spiritual reality in a consistent way. The consistency is there over and above the changes in languages, culture and consciousness. There have always been four elements, not three, and similarly independent cultures and clairvoyants have talked about the higher worlds, the spiritual hierarchies, threefoldness, unity and love, etc. So one thing that Rudolf Steiner tried to do is to show how all these hang together and how also ancient myths, symbols, remnants of ancient cultures, are all consistently about the same spiritual realities. Today we just have a certain stage of intellectual development and consciousness and thus use a certain language, but people throughout the ages have used many languages, be it alchemy or parabels, symbols or sigils.

An image I like using is that of a bandpass filter: depending on our state of consciousness and spiritual development, we look at reality through different glasses. It’s a statistical phenomenon, like a normal Gauss curve along an axis of spiritual maturity for the whole of humanity: the majority sees only matter with physical senses, but a minority experiences more, and a trained advanced minority is at home in the higher worlds. That resolves the dichotomy for discussions on pseudo-science like on Wikipedia.

4) Initiation. Personally, I am of the opinion that is not sound or healthy to have one’s brain full about spirituality, if one does not live it, and does not practice it. This is not my opinion alone, with this I am merely following spiritual teachers who have said the same, quite consistently. The quote 'An ounce of practice is better than tons of theory' captures it succintly, but there are numerous quotes in this sense.

Spirituality is about ourselves and our world, our role in the world, and how we stand and live in that world .. based also on what we believe ourselves and this world to be, really. It’s not dry information or dead knowledge, it’s a way of living, how we stand in the world - the conscious free choices and actions we take. See also Seeds for future worlds

From personal experience, therefore a key step is if one commits to practice of spiritual initiation exercises (such as in Rudolf Steiner’s Knowledge of the Higher World and/or Franz Bardon’s IIH book). To commit means to take this on as a hobby, freely, as a daily discipline and priority. If one does so, one balances the intellectual study (a crucial balancing), and (of course depending on spiritual maturity and karma), one will live the reality of what spiritual concepts are all about. This is absolutely key. In weeks, months and years, one can/will experience vacancy of mind and realize one’s own consciousness without sensory impression or thought, feel experientially how the body breathes the etheric energy through pore breathing, one will sense what’s happening to one’s chakras as one practices consistently over the years, be able to steer the energy flows and work with the elements. And all this is just the start, I’m just trying to make the point: what one knows from experience, one no longer needs to believe. So if one includes in one’s daily practice the praying, for example of the Lord’s Prayer, then this will develop into something that no written book experience will be able to compare to. It’s the difference between the ‘living’ version and the ‘dead’ version.

I believe this is an essential point and its importance cannot be underestimated.

5) Different profiles. When talking about spiritual science, one has to appreciate that it’s such a broad area that there is no simple singular answer that fits all. Some people are or will develop, due to their Individuality (and karma), to initiates who are fully experiential but not scholars at all (for example Rawn Clark says this of himself). Again Rudolf Steiner kept different lectures to describe the differences: scholar, initiate, magician, clairvoyant, .. .

Others will develop the capability of clairvoyance, but definitely not everyone will develop this. Also important: if the development was not balanced but faculties came like unpolished innate, some people have faculties from which they can report, but that are not always correct or truthful because overly coloured with personal skewing due to the unbalanced development of the person. That is why we get such wide spectrum with lots of nonsense in it also, people may be very honest in reporting their experience, but it doesn’t mean their experiences are truthful along the criteria of the spiritual scientific method. The latter requires brutal honesty, discernment, conscientiousness as part of initiation and working on one’s self. Unfortunately souls with good intentions can be quite misguided.

Furthermore, this connects to what I wrote above .. it’s one thing to have an experience in a higher state of consciousness that is clear and truth (and not coloured by one’s own lack of elemental balance), it’s another to be able to be able to bring that down to mundane waking consciousness as a ‘report’ or some description that makes sense or is meaningful for people who have not had the experience. You sense rightaway this part is not quite immediately in reach for everyone (though with years and decades everyone can and will progress, either in this life or in future ones .. work on initiation exercises does not get lost but carries over in terms of spiritual maturity).

On the side, the level of clairvoyance that Rudolf Steiner spoke from is very rare, and there are good reasons why his contribution is unique and beyond what a typical person can reach. This has to do with his mission, the White Lodge, and would lead us too far here.

However usually the more advanced and wise a person gets, the less he/she comes into the public as this is not always their karmic mission. So there are adepts who are extremely advanced, but publicly unknown, as they work in the higher worlds (and ‘behind the scenes’ so to speak). Much and most of the spiritual is therefore not only in what one would call the working on and spreading of the spiritual (scientific) worldview in our world.

6) Whereas under 4) I made the point that one cannot truly live the spiritual and not work on one’s self, it is not so that one needs to have developed spiritual faculties to contribute to the spiritual scientific worldview. Rudolf Steiner explained this on many occasions, you'll also find them on this site.

• A first good illustration comes from people who have used the Goethean scientific method (see eg Bortoft) of pure observation, linking it to possible hypotheses and descriptions. One can train one-self in this also.Many examples exist, eg people who worked on metamorphosis in the plant and animal kingdoms, eg. Frits Hendrik Julius would be a nice example).
• A second illustration would be the work done on the etheric in the plant kingdom: we have a theory, mathematical models, and one can experientially check this in various way (eg alchemy, but also Bardon’s IIH exercises allow to know from experience these influences of the elements and ethers).  A very nice example is Lawrence Edwards who studied buds and linked the experiential data to the mathematical model for the theoretical frame laid out by Rudolf Steiner (re his book 'vortex of life'). Another example would be the work of Lily Kolisko (see more here) who proved scientifically the working of the etheric influences from the different planetary spheres, the effect of potentization underlying homeopathy.

From this angle we come into the areas of application such as agriculture, medicine etc. It does not have to be initiation, alchemy or white magic that one needs to work on and contribute to the spiritual scientific worldview.

7) Last, it speaks for itself that, if one wants to contribute to the spiritual scientific worldview, there are countless opportunities. Examples are all those who have worked in the last century in the streams of anthroposophy, theosophy, initiation, people who have worked on dissiminating the information available (see ao Navigating anthroposophical resources), adding from personal experience, and from study (see also for example systematic anthroposophy), also bridging the current science with the spiritual scientific worldview, those who worked on the border between belief systems, who furthered the application areas (eg waldorf schools, biodynamic agriculture, etc).

This is also about 'why are we doing this'. One's personal mission usually follows naturally from the path followed. This small website initiative is an example .. the goal is to lower the threshold and make structured info available broadly, so it can help others along the path. It's quite natural we are there to be of meaning and support for our brothers and sisters. Thus you will find so many genuine initiatives, each person is just contributing in their own way.

Well it has become a lengthy response, I hope the various angles of perspectives may be useful for background. I included some pointers and links to other topic pages in case you'd be interested to explore, but of course there's more and I'd be happy to go down any of these streets (sketched above) further with you, or others in case you want to home in differently from your starting questions.

First,  my apologies if I am re-inventing the wheel, but to aid in my development, it helps to integrate the experience of learning by questioning and answer. I will attempt to use the FMC Wiki in this endeavor as well as draw from outside sources.

Nonetheless, any definition of a “science” would aid in this discussion by founding a common viewpoint regarding one half of the puzzle called, Spiritual Science. On the one hand, it is almost a sin to use the mechanistic or positivist attitude to dissect spiritual science into two halves for the purpose of understanding the whole of spiritual science. However, we are faced with this very dilemma today, where both a natural and spiritual science coexist in social consciousness. This was not so the case more than 100 years ago when anything relating to the spiritual was considered pseudo-science and worked independent of natural science. We could say this is common knowledge, simply by the fact that the internet has served as a melting pot of information which today makes a genre of "spiritual science" more readily available to the masses. Hence, there is a growing gray area where natural science and spiritual science overlap.  But the question remains, is the science the same in all three areas? Or is it that the true essence of spiritual science rests in this middle ground, where spirituality and materiality are infused with each other.

According to Steiner, “Spiritual science must develop a method of research as rigorous as mathematics and analytical mechanics. On the other hand, spiritual science must rid itself of all superstitions” (GA 322). In this regard, we could consider the limitations of spiritual science to be an adoption of the limitations in both naturalism and spiritualism, of both the material and spiritual worldviews. Therefore, it is perhaps a misunderstanding to approach “spiritual science” as being “spiritual” relative to the "material". Rather, what Steiner was suggesting, was stepping towards a true embodiment of both/and: “If our movement is to have any meaning at all, a meaning which it should eventually have in accordance with the necessary evolutionary laws of mankind, it must sharply define and emphasize the Spiritual inwardness of true Spirituality, as compared with these materialistic and absurd strivings after a world of spirit.” (Note: The idea of a spiritual science grounded in a paradigm consisting of a dead language, could never lead to any understanding of Spirit). Steiner goes on to question, “Why is it necessary in the present age that an entirely new method should hold the hearts of men, a purely spiritual method, one very different from the materialistic methods?” (GA 175).

Thus, a spiritual science could have as a limitation, the inability to offer any definitive definition which can contain the experience of Truth and Spirit - everything must point to finding it for oneself. What I am suggesting in this regard, is that spiritual science takes place at a null-point – the place where the light enters. It is a fallacy then, to consider a worldview which is independent of all other worldviews, for if we find ourselves at this null-point where spiritual science takes place, then there exists a place where differing worldviews form a single point, a threshold into the Truth by being carried by the Spirit into it. Hence, a True Spirituality.

“When any one perceives clearly that we cannot leap over our own consciousness without finding ourselves in the unreal, but does not at the same time perceive that the essential nature of things is to be met within our consciousness in the act of perceiving Ideas, he then falls into the fallacy of talking about limitations of human knowledge. If we cannot get beyond our consciousness, and if the essential nature of reality is not within consciousness, then we can never force our way through to that reality in its true nature” (GA 2).

Nevertheless, what good would a scientific method be if it were without a philosophy of mind? An epistemology which allows one to stay within the null point by the art of thinking. We can say perhaps, that the only repeatability spiritual science can offer is an the entry point into an experiential world, unknown to the senses. Where methodology incorporates the steps to cross the threshold, but also the ability to discover holistic answers to one’s questions by observing them from different perspectives:  “By no other path than epistemology does one come to the view that thinking is the core of the world. For, it shows us thinking's connection with the rest of reality.” (GA002)

Of course, there is no simple answer as to what a science of spiritual science looks like, because in truth, it is very nature of the Cosmos – it is the I Am, seeking self-knowledge through itself while here on Earth. Science, therefore, could be viewed as the process of thinking the I Am uses to not only discern its own independence, but why this is so. Moreover, science then serves to find the null-point again and again, but can it be used in the spiritual? Can science be applied once across the threshold or is it to be left behind?

“ Through esoteric training our thinking becomes finer, more spiritual and more independent of the brain. Look at how important the concepts of time and space are for human feelings. And yet time and space are maya in the spiritual world. An esoteric pupil in the midst of exoteric life may suddenly get the feeling that it's not he who's thinking at this moment but that he's perceiving his thought body and the thoughts that are weaving and working in it” (GA266).  

In summary, regarding the scientific method and an epistemology of spiritual science, it appears to me, that my own limitations of worldview and inability for crossing the threshold, leaves me with mere speculation of what spiritual science is, simply based upon a process of logic or reasoning. But one thing is clear to me, and that is, I cannot equate spiritual science as simply the marriage of “science” and “spirituality”, for that would be wrong to assume. Yet, what I can say with confidence, is that when it comes to answering the question, “what is spiritual science?” I can say based upon personal experience through seeking to understand, that it is the nullification of science and spirituality through a process of each other canceling the other so that one can approach Truth and Spirit as I Am. Therefore, we learn science and spirituality only so that we can enter and exit through the door of liminal spacing, where science and spirituality are left at the threshold.

Hi Diederik, Thank you for the thoughtful and in-depth reply. Could you allow me some time to process? What I like to do, is examine each section independently, as an opportunity to explore and study spiritual science from my own worldview relative to its collective worldview, by beginning with the points you outlined. Hopefully, through this experience, I can find my own entry point into spiritual science by seeking to answer the question for myself, through myself, as it seems to be two-fold - one participates in its development by providing further material to study, and the other participates by putting to use the information to enrich their worldview (e.g., reading Steiner's material as fact compared to thinking for oneself). Though, it appears to me that a spiritual scientist is both/and, where they intake, test, process, and add too or tweak the paradigm as it progresses. Most "anthroposophist" that I have met today, simply read the material at a level of ipso facto, without branching out into other disciplines of thought. There is almost a fear of embracing what has been developed on both fronts, in such that one must be wholly spiritual to arrive at the truth or higher perspective. Here, I find that the science helps to ground such emotions (something I will cite later) by tasking its practitioner with the "quest" to find balance between knowing and not-knowing. Between accepting what is, and accepting what is not. And if I may say, to be a spiritual scientist, one must not reject anything based upon emotion or based upon lack of evidence, but only reject that which does not serve love. For if I understand correctly, spiritual science, at its most fundamental principle, is a science of love. Something I will seek to add more clarity around as we move forward, because my hypothesis is that the outcome of a true spiritual science, is the refinement and embodiment of love as its highest achievement - thus, spiritual science could be viewed as investigating and understanding the nature of spiritual and material manifestations of love (I will seek to add examples of this.)

Okay, Be well, and I will return with more shortly! Thanks, Greg

Dear Greg,

Thanks for your reply and thoughts. I think I see where you’re at. So I thought I would add the following, approaching it differently to try and make things more simple again. I’ll break it down the simple reasoning in steps and use a few schemas (as a picture is a thousand words).

Please take at hand to consider Schemas FMC00.479 and FMC00.479A as base picture. You can search on them directly, but to get the accompanying texts, they are also on the topic page Man's bodily principles.

We can link related views as add-ons, as they all talk about the same frame:

• Schema FMC00.532 and FMC00.474 (both on Cosmic fractal) and
• Schema FMC00.128 and FMC00.079 (both on Planes or Worlds of Consciousness)
• Schema FMC00.141 and FMC00.142 (both on Overview Golden Chain)

Step 1 - Now, carefully contemplate FMC00.479 and 479A. Everything we know and mean and have in our heads when we use the word ‘science’, is only in the lowest physical plane on this Schema. Current science does not take into scope (or subject of study) anything else, it puts a clear boundary on study of the mineral physical world perceptible with senses, and all our thoughts are about this. The rest does not exist. It implies that all answers and explanations have to be found in that lowest plane only. That’s mineral science or current established science of the universities and mainstream voices such as wikipedia.

Side-note: I don’t like or use the term natural science, because contemporary science is not about the whole of nature. This is well coined in 1921-06-24&26-GA205: our mineral science is only about the physical-material element earth, not the other three elements and the corresponding higher ethers with the etheric formative forces.

Step 2 – Now let’s take as an assumption to start with: to describe and understand the cosmos and the whole of nature, the full picture, therefore requires to take a larger area in scope of our thoughts. We need to draw up a framework .. hence the golden chain and cosmic fractal, where all the conceptual building blocks (of which the spiritual scientific Body of Knowledge is built up) come together: worlds or planes of consciousness, spiritual hierarchies, spectrum of elements and ethers, etc.

However all these concepts of spiritual science here ‘below’ .. in language on the physical plane .. are just pointers, concepts .. merely to denote and reason about stuff higher up.

This is also where symbols come in, that’s what Schema FMC00.532 depicts.

Step 3 – So, spiritual science has a layer ‘down below’ talking about ‘the whole’ (all layers or planes) and adds the higher worlds and all the invisible stuff that mineral science scopes out as non-existent. It's like a meta-representation in which current science is embedded.

Method-wise, we do this 'widening of scope' as a way to stick our heads beyond the boundaries of mineral science, of what we ‘take in scope as subject matter’ to think about. If we want to talk ‘here below’ about the whole picture, we need some language about what else is there ‘above’.

Note the key point that arises here is: how do we actually know (for sure) about the invisible stuff above? I’ll come back on that later.

Step 4 – However, and now comes the point: spiritual science is more than steps 2 and 3. The whole idea is that spiritual science holds for the full scope picture. Not just theoretically in words, but also experientially. It wants to be a support not just for the lowest current state of waking consciousness when we limit ourselves to thoughts and senses about the mineral world. It provides a knowledge framework to describe reality and the cosmos also when we add and move to imaginative cognition and beyond – see stages of clairvoyance (or cognition). It also holds when talking from imagination, inspiration and intuition.

Step 5 – Now the whole topic gets expanded from the lowest layer in FMC00.479 to ‘all layers’. This has huge implications, because in the higher spirit world we have no notion of time and space, and a concept like buddhi or love (or Christos) is about the unity of stuff (divine droplets) that get dispersed into many different instances all clothed in different astral & physical substance in the lower layers. Hence, when we describe the whole, it’s quite different when perceived, described and experienced below .. as it is when we take a perspective higher above. Above at the level of intuition it becomes knowing, it becomes the truth, mathematical, there are no more opinions. Hence any words have multiple layers of meaning.

It’s important to realize that the mineral scientific method is suited for below, but does not make sense or is impossible to apply to higher worlds. Just try to imagine for yourself how to sustain and execute what we hold as the scientific method (below), when you no longer have the concept of time as we know it, or you loose the hard boundaries of space we have with physical matter and senses. This is an important consideration to keep in mind when extrapolating expectations regarding 'science' from our current perspective.

Side note: what I tried to describe here may require reading over and over again, it’s a mind-shift to get loose from the frame of thinking we are fixed in. Our functioning is based on the set of thought forms that we have been taken in and have programmed ourselves with in all the days and years of our lives. That’s our operating system. It’s not easy to just switch language or paradigm, a good illustration is leaving Euclidean geometry (mineral physical laws) for reasoning in projective geometry (laws of the etheric).

With these five steps, we can now come back to the recurrent topic: what if we don’t have any higher cognition. Do we just need to accept what ao Rudolf Steiner, Daskalos, Bardon, Beinsa Douno or so many others throughout the ages have been saying?

The answer is no. If we take spiritual science as a ‘theory’, a Body of Knowledge which we accept as a hypothesis, we can do experiments ‘below’ and see if this theory holds true, if it explains phenomena. If we get confirmation of concepts that have been described and postulated. And this is the case, there are plenty of examples, let me just mention the experimental work (and scientific 'proof') by the likes of L. Kolisko, Hauschka, Pfeiffer.

This now also links to my previous answer. If you take on initiation, which is the work on working on yourself (if you want to improve the world, improve yourself .. or Man, know thyself .. etc), then you vastly increase the range of what you will know from experience. It is no longer just theory and belief. This is very exciting, and the problem is that today very few people take this step. But for example the initiation exercises in Bardon’s three books map very nicely to the theoretical-conceptual descriptions by Steiner. Bardon explains nothing, as an initiator he wants you to experience and do the Work. Steiner's focus as a teacher is to describe and explain everything, so offering us a Body of Knowledge below, that can be used as a step-ladder and support.

In fact, the process of study itself can also already lead to imaginative cognition. Bardon’s IIH is the direct way, the fast track, initiation on steroids .. it takes one much further. But study of spiritual science like the rosecrucians (contemplating the schemas, the soul work I describe on this site), can lead to imaginative insight. So too can the study of the Philosophy of Freedom lead us there, as shown by the work of O’Neill and Lowndes (eg Schema FMC00.585).

Finally: the true scientific method should be open for theories and hypotheses and be open-minded and do experiments to see if they can hold true. However each established system also closes itself to sustain its organization. This also is of all ages, and you can read about it in philosophy of science (hence my reference to Popper, Kuhn). Many scientists have fought against this as they did open-minded experiments but received the scorn of the established scientific community in return, examples are Rupert Sheldrake, or people working in the area of potentization and homeopathy (eg Benveniste) and transmutation (eg Kervran).

Dear Diederik,

The more go back and forth over your responses, the more I understand how there is an entire cosmic body of knowledge to explore. Likewise, it is all interconnected and interwoven, where one answer leads to another question, and so forth. Up and down the Cosmic Fractal we go, living life One moment at a time.

Furthermore, everything you offered brings me to seeing that spiritual science is nothing which can be put into a capsule and easily swallowed. The very nature of it makes it alive and organic, which is counter to the shadowy intellect of today. In this regard, I feel grateful for having made it this far to the Door of Truth and Spirit.

Think I am going to just go back to the Overview Free Man Creator - Anthroposophy and follow from there. Likewise, I was quick to judge IIH based upon the Table of Contents due to the word, "magic". For some reason, the phrase Magic always felt off-putting, like it takes away from the Truth, by creating dependency upon another belief system. Something along those lines. In the end, all I want to learn about is Love, and if IIH can help me, then maybe I can learn the magic of love. Only one way to find out...

Thanks

Dear Diederik,

Much appreciated and I can sense where this is leading now – an experience of spiritual science. This is in essence, what my initial question was attempting to grasp "How can I have an experience of spiritual science so I can speak of spiritual science from a lived experience?

Allow me some time to go through and integrate your reply, as it offers a working on my own outlook that is in need of re-orientation to follow along. One thing I want to mention quickly, is that I am not feeling particularly drawn to the Bardon's IIH. I have no real motivation for traveling the astral or reading the akashic records, etc.... If I had to say what my overall purpose for this discussion and for me being here is, it is to learn and understand the nature and meaning of love. That's it. Love supplies all things and is all wisdom, in my opinion. So why reach for the highest apple on the tree, when you can become the whole tree?

Okay, I shall return after spending some time with your replies. Thank you!

Thanks Greg for your reply.

Regarding your earlier message .. I fully understand that Bardon’s IIH is not having the direct appeal maybe if one is into studying Steiner. So my suggestion would be then to take the same materials from Steiner to start with: Knowledge of Higher World (KHW) .. and maybe also the Section in Outline of Esoteric Science (OES) on that subject.

Allow me to make a few comments:

1/ you write about purpose and motivation, about learning and understanding the nature and meaning of love. That’s the big ticket indeed.

a)      One the one hand one learns only by practice, by living it, by giving instead of wanting to receive, by serving, by feeling for the other human being, the golden rule. And that’s such a challenge in daily life that one quickly comes to prayer and inner practice. Our ability to love, imho, cannot be seen loose from our spiritual maturity, elemental balance, inner work.

b)      On the other hand, with love as a concept for study in spiritual science we have to be clear we’re talking about spiritual love, it does connect to unity, buddhi, selflessness, sacrifice. On that point I wanted to add that buddhi or the life-spirit is a concept in the higher spirit world. Where what is separate ‘here below’ is one. We humans all have the droplets of the divine in us, and these are part of one and the same ocean. See Discussion Notes 1 and 2 on Development of the I

The study of spiritual science helps to deepen one’s understanding and appreciation of all this, but it needs to live in feeling to make a difference, it’s about living it. This quote also springs to mind: Initiation#Sri M.

2/ Along with the above, I wanted to add the following regarding the word ‘magic’ which seems to scare people a way a bit in our contemporary culture. Quite understandable, given we are so far from the spiritual, initiation and ancient mysteries in our current materialistic culture and society. Magic means that one has developed faculties or capabilities that allow one to influence the laws of the spiritual (as per the Golden Chain), and its emanation into the physical world. For example one works with the elements in practice with one’s own consciousness, as opposed to studying some concepts on a piece of paper. So as one develops a certain capability, one is able to influence the below .. using one’s own body and consciousness .. microcosm .. as part of the macrocosm.

a)  Thus, Bardon’s IIH uses this as a feedback system, so the person can do a self-assessment for progress, it’s a key to self-initiation therefore. The feedback is direct and experiential, and the feedback system is based on brutal honesty and the conscientiousness of the consciousness soul, no need for a guru or teacher. Therefore, people can do this as part of their modern life, with work and family at home. So IIH is like a reliable climbing rope with knots per step. Many other practices are more like jumping up in the air trying to get up .. this is a system to progress steadily. It can take months, or decades, or lifetimes .. but one thing is sure: this effort is never lost for one’s Individuality, across lives.

b) And also, let’s not forget the goal of IIH is unity in step 10, see eg God experience#Rawn Clark. One does this by using the capabilities developed personally upto step 8, and attempt a kind of pole-vault to step 10 to merge with the godhead with the divine attributes as per Schema FMC00.410. Absolute goodness or spiritual love is the essence here, as covered on the topic pages for Love, Trinity, and Christ Module 9: Trinity and Logoi

So you see, depending on how we fill the word 'love' with meaning, we mean different things, or we're not that far apart.

All that being said, it’s a long journey, and every soul has a different path, is at a different stage along the way, and can contribute in it’s own personal way.

I found someone who is currently working in spiritual science perhaps along the lines of an initiate: Are Thoresen (presswarehouse.com), His focus is in the areas of anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, acupuncture, osteopathy, and agriculture. In this regard, the other part of my initial question regarding names of spiritual scientist currently working today, can also be answered by a simple review on SteinerBooks (presswarehouse.com). It helps seeing how the material can be applied, not just to one's own development, but in a social cause as well.