Topic on User talk:Diederik

Hello

I have been studying Rudolf Steiner's heritage for 8 years. I confirmed to myself factually (including first-hand experiences) a great number of his claims. I also studied other rationally-minded sources touching spirituality. And the following dilemma arose for me. There are sufficient reasons to believe that Steiner' picture of reality is correct. However, if you take "Traditionalism" school ("Perennialism" of XX century) represented by people like Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy, there are provisions which are quite different from what Steiner said. I would like to address the subject of Supreme Divinity, in this respect. According to Steiner, God is FREE in "his" foundational work of issuing the reality's content. Nothing forces the Godhead to create the world. It is a free sacrificial act, not a necessity. This is expressly stated in the "Self-knowledge and God-knowledge" lecture cycle. Also, in Steiner's esoteric cosmogony, "Trinity" is the ultimate concept for understanding what God "is". Traditionalism (which insisted that it expounded the truths of ancient metaphysics, tied to alleged "Primordial tradition"), on the other hand, says that the Supreme Divinity/the Absolute is NOT free to choose whether to bring forth the reality or not. It brings forth the reality out of necessity, because its inner law is about doing this. Also, Traditionalism holds that the first priority concept for understanding the Supreme principle is "Metaphysical Zero", i.e. universal possibility-aspect of Infinity. Other considerations like "Unity", "Trinity" etc. come later.

How to reconcile these contradictions ? What is closer to the truth ? I think the way these questions are answered, strongly impacts our view on God and man relationship's specifics. If you would be so kind, could you please leave a few words about Guenon's critique of the reincarnation idea, as well? He opposed it vehemently. To Steiner reincarnation was the fact, directly witnessed by his clairvoyant insight.

I really appreciate your attention

Thanks for your question and contribution.

Your post includes several questions, in summary:

• The nature of the highest divinity or Trinity, and whether its creation is a free sacrificial act or one born from necessity

• Guenon’s critique of reincarnation

Let me start with a short note regarding Rene Guenon.

As we learn from Steiner’s Karma of Untruthfulness lectures, it is important to not only look at the contents of a message and information, but also of its source, who is behind it and why.

Now this is not a judgment of course, but is my impression and humble opinion that Guenon was characterized as an individual by a strong intellectual vanity. As his bio shows (just check wikipedia to start), Guenon – catholically raised and a product of Jesuit rigorous intellectual training and discipline - was negative and fighting the occult movements, the gnosticm, Blavatsky’s theosophy .. on grounds that they were intellectually empty or lacked a good understanding. In a nutshell he saw it as his purpose and mission to give ‘the necessary intellectual foundation for a proper understanding of its spirit’ (hubris, as the spirit one needs to experience in order to talk about it, else it's empty thought forms). And as cherry of the cake, he later converted to Islam as ‘one of the only real tradition accessible to Westerners’.

This gives a good starting point to answer your question, the schism between intellect and spirit .. because we see here someone who takes a dogmatic approach to fight against the spirit in its many faces, and chooses for the fatalism of Islam which resonates with this dogmatic materialistic-mechanistic intellectual view of the work that qualifies as Ahrimanic. (as a sidenote, one is reminded of the big bang devised by the catholic priest Georges Lemaitre, still the basis for why people today think that they Man, the crown of creation, is but a speck in a mechanistic universe). Rudolf Steiner also describes this correspondence between materialism and Islam, materialistic intellectuality leading to fatalism.

Guenon seemed critical of mostly everything, also science, the catholic church .. but in the first place the true spiritual to which he opposed his own true intellectual metaphysics.

It is thus not a surprise to find him fighting reincarnation which is essentially about the eternal spiritual core of Man. For context see Steiner’s lectures where he positions the abolishing of the spirit, then the soul (see more here). And Guenon, imho, like every soul, came with karmic threads as part of (connected with) a certain wave or impulse.

then:

Regarding the nature of the highest divinity, the answer could be quite short. Everyone who has experienced the higher spirit world and the (god-)experience of unity through initiation, will tell you that there is no way to capture or explain it intellectually .. simply because our consciousness, language and intellect is much too limited and incapable of grasping higher levels of consciousness.

You can relate this to the CoC-ladder Schema FMC00.048 on Twelve Conditions of Consciousness (CoC). This is a question about teleology and purpose, and a simple image to express this is to think of the axis driving a car’s wheels, and now imagine this axis tries to figure out what is going on .. why it is spinning so fast and sometimes slow, why it is moving, turning, where it is going, who is deciding on direction, and why? The axis is just at a lower level than the car as a whole, and the human being who devised it and is driving it. Schema FMC00.471A is an illustration of that idea: the gap of 'level 4 trying to grasp and comprehend level 12' is orders of magnitude wider than, say, a stone trying to understand a human being.

That being said, imho the dichotomy might be simply resolved philosophically if one assumes that the act of giving is the intrinsic nature of the trinity, if intrinsic nature can be seen correspond to necessity. Hereby we are going around the problem of freedom, because our concept of free will does not apply to the godhead. Freedom is something relevant for humanity as spiritual hierarchy under development, in its current stage of evolution. At higher CoC stages, sacrifice becomes an intrinsic property as part of creating and giving, rather than receiving.

But my first spontaneous answer above was the most correct, it’s just a question beyond the limits of sensible scope .. as Nietzsche stated, it’s important to deeply question and qualify a problem, so as to focus on the right kind of problems or questions, and so imho this is just a theoretical problem, as they can follow from our faculty of thinking, but beyond what Man can take into current human consciousness .. so, something we should not break our heads on. Also on this point Steiner explains that if one continues to ask ‘why’ there comes a point the question does not make sense any more. Let me conclude with a quote by Rudolf Steiner also regarding your question, from 1903-11-16-GA090A.  

Diederik, thank you for the reply. Your explanation resonates with what I was thinking as well. The notions, applicable to human life, are elevated to a new level of meaning, when higher planes of awareness are discussed.

Now I can see more clearly that if the passages (touching this theme of freedom) from his several lecture courses are unified into one monolithic message, then it gets more obvious what Steiner really implied saying that “only God is truly free” in the lecture course that I pointed to. God’s “freedom” lies in the fact that “his” dynamics is opposite in its specifics to acting towards some goal or object due to the compulsion of inner egotistic impulsivity. It is the case with a human being who feels impelled (“subconsciously”/astrally) to act for the sake of egocentrically pleasurable consequences an object can provide, and this means being unfree. Also, God isn’t motivated by the necessity of some logical (“why”) reasoning. Godhead’s nature means giving the overflow of love (sacrificial selfless energy) to the “ideal” of perfect creation. Dichotomy of “freedom” and “necessity” is resolved in this divine state.

However, I actually used this question regarding the reconciliation of views as a starting point to make the transition to a more encompassing and complex topic. It is about the connection between Initiation and the ancient Metaphysics.

There are indeed questionable nuances about Rene Guenon’s figure. His work contains a number of speculative and dubious moments. However, it appears that, when it comes to the subject of Initiation, he (in general) presented the body of information which was objectively there. He came into contact with it, since he read much and communicated with members of secret societies etc.

So, there were a number of people who expounded the same doctrine on what “High” Initiation was really about in the ancient times (in the Greater Mysteries, as opposed to the Lesser Mysteries). And the ancient spiritual Metaphysics with its central concept of The Absolute (the unconditioned Supreme principle, which allegedly stands “higher” than the Trinitarian God, i.e. Unity + its operative Duality) played an important part in it, among other constituents. It was about reaching the enigmatic “initiatic states” (not identical to any kind of exact clairvoyance, as I understand it) via activating “intellect of the heart” (Noetic intelligence) in a metaphysical endeavor to discern the meaning of the esoteric Symbols. This activity slowly led to transposing one’s centre of awareness into The Absolute (“Supreme Identity”) with an array of consequences.

May I ask you to read, fully and attentively, this article (“the concept of Initiation”) and share your remarks on it ? https://evolaasheis.wordpress.com/2016/04/14/the-concept-of-initiation/

And then I will say what I think. I know that the author is also a controversial figure, but it’s a matter of scrutinizing the aforementioned objective body of info, regardless of who presents it

I am anxious about specifying Steiner and spiritual science position in relation to these issues. Because (if you read this article) it seems that Steiner remained in the domain of Lesser Mysteries (from the standpoint of the aforesaid doctrine) with the emphasis on clairvoyance and the moral order of reality

Dear, I have read the document as you asked. Before I answer though and we go into this, let's take a step back. As forum threads often divert by following the natural flow and trains of thought, I want to make sure we focus on what's most important for you, so start with the end in mind.

In response to your last comment, there are three elements

• (a) the document by Julius Evola on initiation you put forth

• (b) information on the theme or subject matter of initiation;
• -> (b1) contents of the Evola document - the information in and thesis of this document

• -> (b2) knowledge about initiation, besides this document

• (c) the question or thesis you put forth on the basis of (b1), ie that Rudolf Steiner remained in the domain of the lesser mysteries. .

In my view, the document contents (b1) does not allow for logical inference, and to draw conclusions would be abductive logic, using  ‘incomplete observations’ (a polite way to qualify the contents) to then draw ‘possible’ (but in this case erroneous) explanations or conclusions.

Hence our discussion can go into three directions:

• (a) comment on the document in terms of form and contents, incl. author with sources and background;

• (b) discuss the subject matter of initiation (not limited to this document)

• (c) comment on your last question/thesis.

It seems to me that (c) is your real question and thus the most interesting. However, to address this question in an appropriate way, a different perspective is needed, not (b1) but (b2).

So, my suggestion would be to focus on (c) with links to the required background foundation (b2), and then afterwards we could come back on (a) and (b1) separately.

Would that be OK for you, or do you see it differently?

I’d like to ask you to then restate your question (c) again on the Talk page for the topic page ‘Mystery School tradition’ (or ‘Initiation’), that is a better place (than this current thread on my personal profile home) .. and then we can go into it there. Is that OK?

The reason I sent this article is your statement that Guenon had a mechanistic-materialistic kind of intellectual view and there was nothing pertaining to the actual knowledge of the spirit in his writings (just empty thought-forms). While, in truth, it is a bit more complicated. Therefore, I assumed that you (probably) weren’t that familiar with the “traditional” view on Initiation and its connection with “metaphysics”, which Guenon, Evola and some others presented in their works and whose particulars they discussed among themselves. So, I gave this sketch by Evola to provide a rough, preliminary idea. And to understand (from your reaction) : to what extent are you versed in this theme ? (right now my question is this). Then I would ponder which direction should the conversation take, regarding my interest in grasping Rudolf Steiner’s position in this “initiation controversy”

If you are familiar with the theme, I’ll try to formulate questions more precisely, and you decide where they should be discussed. Otherwise, some other texts (regarding the traditional view on Initiation) should be examined for more details. Like “Initiation and Spiritual realisation” and “Perspectives on Initiation” books by Guenon, for example.

The thing is, the term “metaphysics” means something different (according to the doctrine of Initiation in question) from what is often understood under this term (operations of a discursive mind which thinks abstractly about non-physical principles of reality). The metaphysical concepts centered around “the Absolute” idea (which can be found in Neoplatonism, Hinduism, Taoism, and which are also given by Guenon in some of his works) serve as a preparation. The real intention is about developing the powers of inner clarity through the work with Symbolism, which are different from both ordinary mental reasoning and mystical experiences. “Metaphysics” in a deeper sense means the domain beyond the world of finite forms, of “Manifestation” (when demarcations can be made between individual forces, beings, structures). That is, beyond “Nature” in the broadest sense of the word, which (according to some ancient views) includes not only this 3d/sense-perceptible environment, but also astral and heavenly planes (“where” certain demarcations between spiritual individualities can be made). “Metaphysics” in this case means the domain of the Infinite; it transcends everything existential (delimited and conditioned) and yet gives “birth” to it through the activity of unfolding the chain of primordial potencies (that includes the Unity as an unmanifest principle of all Being). Therefore, one aspiring for “great liberation” (who wants to anchor the centre of his spiritual presence in the reality that is beyond anything formal) is supposed to achieve this via developing the powers and reaching the states, which can allow him to identify with the Unconditioned. That’s why the exponents of that doctrine asserted that the “initiatic states” (they can’t be adequately described at all to somebody who never experienced them) were different from super-sensible perception. The latter orientates between individual (demarcated) spiritual entities/influences and thus remains in the domain of “Nature”.

I am describing all this from the standpoint of that doctrine, of course (to the measure of my capacity for understanding). Not that I am sure that there is “something” higher than the Trinity or that there are such “initiatic states” achievable

I just noticed the rift between Steiner’s treatment of Initiation subject and the one which can be found in the authors under consideration. For Steiner, Initiation was about achieving clairvoyant perception and establishing conscious links with the occult forces of “nature”. That’s why those authors thought that he lacked better understanding As far as I remember (correct me if I am wrong), RS didn’t speak of Initiation in Mysteries of any kind as a matter of reaching “Supreme identity”

@Eugene88

The highest cognitive faculty that Steiner termed "Intuition" is the faculty to identify with the Unconditioned. Note that his preferred term should be distinguished from everyday, philosophical, or other established uses of the word. I believe the supreme identity, if I may put it like that, would then be "Spirit-Man".

If I recall correctly, you said previously that Steiner adapted his explanations to his listeners, and you're right; incidentally and aside from ordinary considerations, this is connected with his faculty mentioned above, in a rather complicated way. The sources unadapted towards anyone's understanding are his philosophical works. Steiner's main philosophical work deals with creation of moral ideals out of nothing. While the work doesn't explicitly touch upon occultism, the human faculty to create moral ideals out of nothing is the second aspect of the Trinity (= Christ, Buddhi, Life-Spirit, or "moral imagination"). It goes without saying that pretty much everyone lacks this faculty, and we can also infer that Steiner did not lack it.

To repeat, I'm not familiar with Traditionalism, but if someone elevates themselves above Steiner as to morality or as to higher cognition, well, that is quite a claim. The way I see it, such claims are coming from adherents of the doctrine of double truth, whether they adhere to it consciously or unconsciously. The equivalent claims from the other side of it would be accusations of "pseudo-science". Steiner has abolished that doctrine.

EDIT: Concerning Neoplatonism. Here Steiner says that what Plotinus called "the One" corresponds to "Imagination". Not sure if this particular line of inquiry is of interest, but you should be able to find more scattered mentions of Neoplatonists, Hinduism, or Taoism by him.

Hi (Eugene?) .. just a quick response, besides the structural follow up on contents which I propose to do on the page for ‘Mystery Schools tradition’ or ‘Initiation’, if you want to.

I’d like to clarify something upfront.

We are in danger here of talking across purposes, because there is a well known schism between people who talk from experience regarding initiation and the spiritual, and those who don’t.

That is not a value judgement, Rudolf Steiner also described on many occasions that even advanced Individualities, for various reasons, were not able (yet) to embrace, accept or come to spiritual science in their incarnation in the 19-20th century (examples Haeckel, Nietzsche, etc).

This pattern is still there today of course: one finds people who are in front of the gate of the spiritual but cannot accept even the existence of a spiritual reality. Others are pivoting or doubting somewhere in the greyzone, others are ignorant and just not ready for the question or consideration, whilst still others are fighting the spiritual out of their current belief system. All this is normal and follows spiritual maturity and karmic history, the population consists of different cohorts or segments at different stages of their karmic balance and development between the intellectual and consciousness soul. Faculties that are an antidote to conflict, like openness of mind, asking questions, .. also relate to this.

The sources you mention accept that things like initiation and a higher metaphysics exist (as one can hardly ignore their reality in history), but then go on wanting to own the subject matter as experts and provide an intellectual explanation. This to me is like spiritism in the 19th century, it sidetracks from the truth. It is not that these sources are not informed, or not good scholars, or don’t come up with certain things that may be true, but untruth is worse and more dangerous than ignorance.

No authority should be granted to people who don’t have the credentials to be able to talk about these things from the wisdom of experience. And that is a characteristic of the FMC wiki and its choice of and focus on certain sources.

There are thousands of books by respected scholars through the ages, and often people resonate with this or that stream of thought for good reasons (maybe related to karmic history and spiritual maturity) .. one lands where one needs to be in order to take the next step. Therefore it would not be realistic to expect all of us to speak the same language, and so we can respectfully accept and agree to disagree.

Initiation is a pathway with many stages. Seeing the spiritual in nature is one stage, experiencing the astral world is another, the lower and higher spirit world are yet different worlds and experiences. For each world Man can develop various faculties, whether astral or mental travel, clairvoyance, evocation of spirits, etc. The experience of Unity that is being talked about in the sources you mention is also an important, but just one such stage, and not the final one, as the human being can develop capabilities beyond this (eg master the language of creation, combine unity with mundane consciousness). And obviously not every person can develop all of what is possible. But the best way to the mystery of initiation, if you live with this question, is to pick up practice of self-initiation and commit to exercises yourself. Even the experience of vacancy of mind in the first step of Franz Bardon’s IIH will deepen your perspective more than reading any number of books (as the saying goes .. an ounce of practice is better than tons of theory).

Happy to take this further in a structured way as I offered before, and go into the other questions you had (w/ regards to Rudolf Steiner and lesser/greater mysteries, and some things you wrote that would be good to clarify because they are not correct, such as  “For Steiner, Initiation was about achieving clairvoyant perception and establishing conscious links with the occult forces of “nature”.)

What I wrote above might require deepening with in-depth explanations, but this is not the place to do so. However the site contains materials to assist in furthering one's insight, supporting the earnest open minded student interested in learning through self study.

To stay on topic, the following is a first set of topic pages worthwhile to study as a foundation to initialize or further one’s understanding:

•    Man's transformation and spiritualization, Mystery School tradition, initiation,

•    Franz Bardon and initiation, IIH, initiation exercises.

•    God experience, Stages of clairvoyance, Kundalini.

If you’re interested in symbols, take a look at

•    Symbols, Book of Ten Pages - as related to what is on ‘Cosmic fractal’

And finally also relevant to our exchange and comment above:

• Spiritual guidance of mankind, About this site#Sources, Sources of spiritual science

To add, and approach this differently, with the intention to somehow try and bridge the gap described above ..  two points:

1/ First, taking the broad outline description below, I wanted to say that spiritual science as it’s covered on the FMC wiki should not be in disagreement with the points described below. That is, with nuances, like the last two points won’t help us forward practically here. The third point is the key one, because we were talking initiation in this exchange specifically (hence my underlining).

"The Traditionalist or Perennialist School is a philosophical and spiritual perspective that emphasizes the universal and timeless truths underlying all major world religions. It is rooted in the belief that a single transcendent source or metaphysical reality forms the foundation of all genuine spiritual traditions, regardless of their cultural or historical expressions. Core Principles:

• Perennial Philosophy (Philosophia Perennis): The school is built on the idea that there exists a universal and eternal wisdom that transcends specific religious forms. This wisdom is present in all major religions, often called the "primordial tradition." Thinkers of this school argue that each religion, while differing in outer form, ritual, and theology, expresses the same inner truth in varying degrees.
• Sacred Unity and Hierarchy: A central tenet is the concept of sacred unity - the idea that all of existence is rooted in a divine source. While religions articulate this source differently (God, the Absolute, Brahman, Tao), they all point toward the same ultimate reality. The Traditionalist perspective often includes a hierarchical understanding of reality, where spiritual truths are more fundamental and enduring than material realities.
• Symbolism and Esotericism: Symbolism, myths, and rituals in religious traditions are viewed as ways to connect humanity with the divine. These symbolic expressions are considered universal across religions but may vary in their external manifestations. The school often emphasizes esotericism, the inner or mystical aspects of religion, which are regarded as the most direct path to divine truth.
• Unity Without Syncretism: While recognizing the shared truths of religions, Traditionalists avoid blending or merging traditions (syncretism). Instead, they stress the importance of practicing a single tradition deeply, respecting its integrity and particularities.
• Critique of Modernity: Traditionalists criticize modern secularism, materialism, and relativism for detaching humanity from the sacred and the transcendent. They see modernity as a deviation from the spiritual principles that have historically guided civilizations. "

2/ When we focus on Guenon as a or the key figure in this school, I am assuming (have read) that the circle in which he grew up influenced him greatly, and so I add this quote by Alexandre Saint-Yves which for me sums it up: "The truth is that there are no occult sciences, because what is scientific ceases to be occult, and what is occult ceases to be occult by becoming scientific."

[we can read 'occult' as 'esoteric' or, more contemporary terminology, 'spiritual']

To me this captures the essence of the problem .. because, whereas intentions were good, the scientific that was meant here was an approach with the scientific paradigm that is limited to the physical senses and intellectual thinking (rational logic). And that is a contradiction with the nature of the spiritual world, in that we cannot reduce the higher words to only the language, experience, dimensions of the human physical world. Again, I think the principles were fine but initiation is about the experience and development of higher senses and transformation of our soul and bodily principles.

So, I think Guenon and others did great scholarly work collecting and collating materials to support their thesis and underbuild their beliefs. As long as it's about scholarly intellectual work on information and knowledge that's fine, however the key point is that 'the map is not the territory'. And even someone who has seen various maps cannot know the reality that these maps describe.

Hence the point I tried to make earlier, that it makes a huge difference if one can speak from experience. Reading and thinking about the taste of an apple or the coolness of the water in the swimming pool is not the experience, and certainly in the esoteric domain so much was in veiled language, where most of the true wisdom was implicit and coded, that one needed to know - ai have had the experience - for it to make sense. A nice example are the illustrations in medieval alchemy.

Now, to round it off .. we can and thus should not judge any potential spiritual experience of writers, who, suppose they did have the experience, may have been reticent and/or not at the level of spiritual advancement to bridge with what they studied and wrote about. Also, the Guenon timeframe was certainly different times and the road to self-initiation was not so clear as post Steiner - Bardon. But one càn certainly assess - as it is far too obvious - that certain writings, like the Evola document that started this thread, are in sharp contrast with insights and wisdom from modern initiates with decades of experience of living the higher worlds and the experience of unity.

PS: for reference, additional info added as IG08 with link to IG07, see:

Impulses from waves of reincarnating souls#Impulse group IG08 - Traditionalist - Perennialist School

Thanks for the answers, links and recommendations. I’ll give a detailed response in a day or two. The final one, I hope, to avoid continuing this flood on your profile page. I started it here, cause I thought it wasn’t appropriate for “structured discussions” (due to its strongly controversial nature). Maybe I should have done it via a contact form, but I hadn’t noticed the opportunity before I started the topic here. sorry if my Eng is not on the level, especially in a punctuation department, not my first language

No probs, not our first language either. And no subject should be controversial, don't worry about it! I also found this interesting to explore and we all learn from it, that's the wonders of a question .. every question is a good question for an open mind. You can also reach me via email or facebook if you want to be more interactive.

I think the problematics of this discussion should be narrowed down. “Traditionalism” is more like a retrospective term (those people are grouped under "traditionalism" banner, but they didn’t apply this label to themselves collectively). If a current of thought is meant, then it’s just the "declaration" of the certain waymarks. And they are based on something, bearing a foundational value. This "something" was the data, which those people came across. It appears that they didn't unearth it in publicly available books back in the day. They studied the documents treasured by the esoteric circles (in which they were admitted) under the guidance of respective tutors. For example, this goes to Fristhjof Schuon, who was initiated into the Sufi Shadhili order, and Titus Burchhardt (into the Darqavi Order). And, of course, Guenon (was initiated into a number of esoteric groups). That type of structured, complex and disciplined presentation (with a precisely defined terminology) on esotericism, which is found in some of his writings, can’t appear out of nowhere. There must have been supervising figures behind his literary work. And it seems that they acted on the basis of the guide-lines, rooted in the long-standing, knowledgeable outlook (which includes the notions of the Noetic faculty and its central role in the Higher mysteries, Supreme Identity, the contrast between Initiatic and Mystical states, Initiatic transmittance etc.). Guenon was a vessel, conveying what someone else imparted to him. He said so himself that there were some esoteric sources, some initiation experts behind him.

It can be seen from the tractates by those authors that the general scheme of the world happenings, present therein, has a lot in common with what can be found in Steiner and in the books like “the Transcendental universe” by Harrison. The Christ principle is also recognised there.

The difference lies in the certain subtleties, which put a new complexion on the matter. One of them is the concept of “Infinity” as the ultimate source of everything. Guenon elaborates on it in his “Multiple states of Being" book. What he develops there is close to the principal considerations in Jewish Kabbalah (which he listed among genuine initiatic traditions), i.e. a distinction made between “Ein Sof" (“infinite”, “with no end”; “concealed God”) and “God of manifestation”. This corresponds to the delicate interrelation between Infinity and Unity (also, Multiplicity arising from the latter), posited in the said book. He gives an outlet for understanding Infinity (of course, as far as a limited earthly mind is capable of getting a grasp of such lofty reality, never fully comprehensible) from several viewpoints. Among those are universal possibility, absolute knowledge and some others. And he proceeds with describing the succession and the interaction of the metaphysical principles (organically implicit within one another; Infinity being the supreme one), which together constitute "metaphysical order”. Some of Steiner’s lectures offered a glimpse into how humans felt “qualitatively” about Numbers in the past. Steiner started with “One”. Guenon starts with “Zero”. It means “Possibility of Manifestation” inherent in the global Possibility-substrate within Infinity (“possibility of non-manifestation” is also present "there"), as long as it is not yet affirmed/differentiated (manifested) and tends towards “the mold”, which would reveal what is implicit in it, which would fashion something out of it. Unity ("One") is THAT "mold". Therefore, "One" is the affirmation of "Zero". Unity is also an expression of "non-manifestation possibility", since, being the principle of all manifestation (Multiplicity of beings and forms in “Nature”), it’s not manifest in “Nature” itself.

Actually, there is something akin to what you called “mastering the language of creation” in this supposedly "old-school" view on esoterics. Someone, who successfully integrates (Involution) the fruits of his journey in the manifest states on the summit of Identity with the Highest and the Unconditioned, becomes an immutable foundation for the corresponding possibilities being actuated. This is a "bliss of tranquility, which is full of activity” (not action, though; the state of overflowing with energy is meant, in which one emanates and remains unhindered, not subject to change) described in some Taoist texts.

The opposition between intellect and spirit is a tricky issue in this case. It is applicable to Guenon’s situation, only if we assume that he stayed on the ground of discursive intellectuality his entire life. However, he dropped a few indications here and there that he actually experienced some of the alleged “initiatic states” (which are to be viewed as supra-rational). He stressed that they were reachable by activating the special power of intellectual transparency (“Intellectual” in a higher sense) with the seat in the “subtle Heart”. He observed on another occasion that the exercises, performed in “Hysichasm” (the mystical path in the Eastern Orthodox Christianity), had likely distant "high initiatic" origins. However, in the case of orthodox monks they degenerated into mysticism (they practise so-called “Prayer of the heart” there; the emotive aspect of the doing is accentuated).

I suspect that the answer to this question (is it necessary to have exact super-sensible perceptions in order to talk about the spirit at all?) is conditional upon an exhaustive survey of the "corporate dynamics” in the Mysteries. And it should be retraced back to the times when the Earth with all its kingdoms was represented with a different kind of "material" phenomenality and a picture clairvoyance was routinous for (what then was) humanity. That faces some obstacles, obviously. Guenon gave a hint that a human’s natural proclivity (while being tied to the form of “dense” embodiment, currently known to us as "material human body") for activating that Supra-rational/Noetic mode of knowing was dependent on the peculiarities of his preceding physical existences. Guenon didn’t deny the soul’s sojourn in various kinds of physicality; he was convinced, however, that each kind is fully experienced only once (that’s why he didn’t believe in reincarnation). It is if some human entities somehow enjoyed the capability (during those very distant epochs like Lemurian) for "divining" the high metaphysical principality behind concrete phenomena and learning to orientate towards it, while others didn’t. That served as a precondition for this later division into the Greater mysteries (High Initiates with talents for the Noetic knowing) and the lesser Mysteries (Initiates with a disposition for clairvoyance).

Perhaps, an important requirement for establishing congruity between Anthroposophy and "traditionalism" is making it clear if “Intuition” meant the same both in Steiner and Guenon (who said The Noetic intelligence was "Intuitive") cases or not. Strictly speaking, Intuition in Steiner's sense indicated the capacity to "live into" the very Egos of spiritual Individualities. Traditionalist’s "Intuition" is about going beyond Individualities. So, it’s not exactly the same. Probably, the actual implications of Steiner’s "Intuition" were wider than what he mentioned to others when using the term. I dunno

That sentence “To Steiner Initiation was about..” is a bad choice of words. What I mean is that the techniques of making precise distinction between spiritual individualities (this is, of course, impossible without developing exact seership) were highlighted by RS as indispensable for mastering “Initiation-science” (in his sense of the word). High Initiation in the "traditional" sense was about something different.

I get it that you doubt the tenacity of the whole thing, because you made the certain impression with Guenon. But if one goes into this paradigm with both eyes open (reading and understanding a sufficient amount), it becomes a little more difficult to write it all off as insignificant and/or erroneous, right away. Admittedly, I don’t understand everything (I haven’t studied even a half of the available material yet, which includes books, articles, letters). Further inquiry (involving a comparative study of spiritual streams) might help. I’ll let know if I find anything decisive.

P.S. To be honest, the reason I read books and live with questions isn’t my love for theorising. This is an exercise of seeking for the objectivity of Truth and overcoming the soul’s tendency to put wishful thinking on a pedestal. It is a way of purifying one’s "astrality", essentially. Egocentrism (of which the soul’s deep-seated distaste for truthfulness is one of the strongest expressions) should be better dealt with prior to any kind of "esoteric training".

Having read the linked article by Evola, I'll add a few brief remarks. However justified he may have been in his criticism of "neo-spiritualism", the paragraph near the beginning where he sweeps anthroposophy under that label indicates that — and I'm questioning his knowledge only regarding anthroposophy — he was either insufficiently informed about it or did not understand it. In Evola's own terms, Steiner would be a Greater Initiate, one of the elite capable of immanent transcendence, who spoke from his true Initiatory experiences; anthroposophy would be a new authentic Initiatory presence entering the domain of history. What I'd written about "Intuition" — before reading the article — would remain as it is. "Imagination" would be "noetic", in the sense that it is thinking that rises completely above language and concepts. To emphasise again, the terms were used by Steiner ad hoc and are completely detached from any other usage.

Evola writes about translating initiation knowledge from one tradition to another; when establishing congruence between Steiner and Traditionalism, I'd keep two things in mind. First, anthroposophy is entirely new, so care should be taken to avoid forcing it into old existing traditions. Second, the most fundamental key to understanding anthroposophy lies in its philosophical "translation" (i.e. Steiner's philosophical works) rather than any tradition, be it initiatory or religious. If objectivity and rationality are sought after, I can't think of a better approach.

Aside from that, a short addition regarding the initial question about Zero, Unity and Trinity. I don't really know if this case can be said to be analogous to what Steiner described, when talking about esoteric truths, as different people viewing the same tree from different angles. I'm more certain that the question cannot be properly approached with conceptual and temporal thinking alone. Going above the conceptual level is achieved by symbolic meditation (e.g. the first exercise in the fifth chapter of Occult Science), and remembering things backwards trains non-temporal thinking. Steiner said that results with respect to "Imagination" may be feasible within several years. Just something else to consider.

Hi Eugene .. I will edit this and reply more extensively later .. but quick reply on a few points after a first read.

• I did not write nor intend to say that 'it is all insignificant and/or erroneous'.
• you seem to know Guenon and the others well, and write some interesting things we can go into. For example it's known as a rosecrucian practice that study, like for example of Steiner's PoF and anthroposophy, can induce imaginative insight .. even though the faculty is not the same as through dedicated initiation exercises. So there is a huge difference between having spiritual experiences (very broad), and having the developed capabilites.
• one point you, or this conversation, comes back to .. is the distinction between lesser and greater mysteries. I deliberately had left that unanswered, for various reasons, but I will say so much that I agree Steiner's mission was more regarding what in ancient times were the lesser mysteries (outward in public, gaining an understanding through symbols, here the intellect etc). Any statement is an oversimplification as he did go further than that, but the contrast is clear with Bardon who was only offering what in ancient times were the greater mysteries .. the experiential initiation to adepthood. Both however have to be transferred to current times and so it becomes more of a continuum because the center lies with the parifal human being and consciousous soul .. hence also self-initiation. Just wanted to answer that because it appears to have been the underlying question from your very first post.
• More to follow ;)

Hi,

Diederik, when reading the second point/paragraph of your latest message, it finally dawned upon me that Steiner’s Pure thinking seems to correspond very strongly to Guenon’s Noetic knowing based in the subtle ("etheric" in Steiner’s terms) Heart.. Steiner concretises the nuances of the pure thinking experience (which is only hinted at in PoSA) in "the Younger generation" lecture cycle and in some others. Importantly, he says there that the Thinking, which shrugs off the sensorial element (whereas the ordinary human thinking uses it) becomes something else. It becomes the Pure Will-experience, actuated from the Heart. One hovers with one’s Will, so to speak, in a kind of inner clarity without an after-echo of sense-perception present in this form of "thinking". OS: the Outline says that a student can learn to wilfully evoke corresponding feelings after realising the meanings of the esoteric symbols (and feeling can be viewed here as basically a modification of Will in the domain of meaning) through a meditative effort and without the support of the relevant symbolic imagery. The meanings pertaining to spiritual realities, which are thus purely "Wilfully Felt", interconnect and become a kind of inner transparency, which can be analogously called "thinking". Thus, one can gradually ascend "higher" and "higher" in terms of attuning his Willing-feeling/Feeling-Will to the esoteric meanings, while not being clairvoyant yet in the sense of having concrete supersensible perceptions of the higher worlds. I would say there isn’t much room left to locate Guenon’s Noetic knowing in the list of faculties since it is neither the exact supersensible perception nor the ordinary "head thinking". It must correspond to Pure thinking.

Ablaut, I am aware that Anthroposophy and Spiritual science with Mystery of Golgotha as the centre-forming core stood for something new (Evola was ignorant of this, since he didn’t know the full import of Steiner’s work due to the obvious information access restrictions back then; he should have read/listened to hundreds of Steiner’s lectures to understand what Steiner was really on to). I rather wanted to substantiate a properly understood transition from the old to the new with enough evidence and to reassess the roles of each in the great scheme of things. I don’t fully comprehend what to make of that old take on Initiation, which these "traditionalist" people spoke of, based on their participation in esoteric societies (even though there were still disagreements between Evola and Guenon concerning the occurrence of fully effective Initiation only within the line of transmittance in initiatic organisations or not).

Is this "traditional" take on Initiation completely outdated nowadays and should be simply brushed aside ? It appears that Steiner was adamant that the Initiation transmission via being initiated in esoteric organisations (e.g. Masonic) was’t pertinent any longer. As I get it from some of the lecture courses, Mystery of Golgotha established a new state of affairs in this respect. Christ virtually Initiated the whole of humanity by his deed and by instilling his etheric presence into the Earth’s spiritual "atmosphere". Effective Initiation is brought about by pressing further with spiritual exercises appropriate for the current epoch, while retaining the openness & receptivity to the Christ impulse in one’s soul.

Furthermore, was this "old-school" concept of Initiation (found in Guenon, Evola etc.) a kind of devilish deception from the start (with the focus on this idea that the root of your spirituality is in Inifinity, to which you should reconnect via the Supreme Identity, transcending finally the moral order and even the "personal God") ? Steiner said that Luciferian entities were inspirators behind the certain Mystery streams. According to him, some spiritual traditions were direct offshoots of those streams. Like the Ancient Chinese culture with its idea of Tao representing some kind of universal spiritual force, encompassingly active behind everything and limited by nothing. "Inner impulses of evolution" lecture cycle touches upon this subject. Guenon considered Taoism a legit initiatic tradition, which Confucius expounded exoterically.

There is this distinction between:

a) the spiritual teachings with the tendency to focus on the Absolute principle, which is ultimately beyond the moral order, God as the Unity and "Nature" as its manifestation. One can unmask this motto (with that or another spin put on it) in Hinduism, early Buddhism, Taoism and some other traditions.

b) the emphasis on the connectivity to One God through morality and love for human beings as the God’s children created after "his" image , which can be found in the Old Testament’s spirituality (within the scope of the Hebrew society) and which is fully exemplified in the instructions of Christ Jesus (all of humanity is included).

"Traditionalists" also attempted to adapt the paradigm centered around the Absolute/Infinity and the Supreme Identity to the New Testament and Christ, but it doesn’t work for me that much. New Testament is permeated with "moral warmth”.

Something seems to be amiss here, so I wanted to get a more comprehensive picture of the humanity’s Initiation history. And to make sure that what I am going to do with my further life and development has relevance in the context of what’s really happening on a grander scale.

Hi Eugene .. just a suggestion and open invitation, if you're on facebook it would allow us to be more interactive, you find my details on the Contact page here.

Because, the question of initiation is of such importance for this life here that we should address that with enough bandwidth. I'm happy to elaborate and write out a more structured narrative base text on the site, but the interaction would help to first frame the questions and context more clearly .. and maybe we can answer certain things already quicker in an interactive way.

Unfortunately, Facebook got banned a while ago where I live. I’ll try to install VPN on a recently bought new smartphone and access Facebook that way (although many VPN services are being shut down with DPI technology in this country and it’s getting worse). If this doesn’t work, the conversation can be continued via a contact form. If it is not bothersome, you could post one more commentary in this thread on the points which I have mentioned in the two preceding posts. After that I’ll take time to formulate questions regarding Initiation with precision (and to give you some rest from this conversation, since you probably offer your helping hand to a bunch of people, not me alone). I will use either Facebook or the contact form in a month or so to resume the conversation (I am currently snowed under with work, anyway).

Indeed if you use the contact form we can continue over email, less interactive than facebook chat but probably a good in between step.

In your last reply, you touch on many different aspects that could also be followed in separate threads. Following the links I'll add below broadens for background reading.

Re initiation, the secret societies (that held knowledge of the occult in the time of the Guenon) were / are a mix that does not represent purity and wisdom, organized power structured as they were / are. This is a broadly known fact and many initiates have commented on it, eg take Jean Dubuis, William G. Gray, etc for a start. Not that there are not genuine individuals in such societies and/or lodges, but it is not the pure brand of mystery wisdom. See also IG07 and IG08 on Impulses from waves of reincarnating souls. Steiner also described how mysteries in the end always get corrupted through human organized tradition and all too human power agendas (eg the druidic mysteries, etc), it is of all ages.

If you want to connect to initiation today, I would recommend you start with Steiner's Knowledge of the Higher Worlds (and chapter in OeS) and Franz Bardon's Initiation into Hermetics. The latter book is the modern proven system for self-initiation for our age of the consciousness soul. Steiner delivered some 80.000 pages of worldview materials that offers a foundational knowledge framework on many things, including mystery schools tradition, history and technical principles of initiation, etc. You will see the two are complementary. If you want to follow initiation without guru or teacher, IIH is a proven system that will get you there as it was designed for the contemporary western person leading a modern normal life in society. Do not underestimate what is not written, you will experience a lot and find inner guidance once you commit to the practice of the initiation exercises of just the first three steps of IIH.

Regarding the one god. This is a fundamental principle of unity splitting into duality, time and eternity, you find it in all spiritual languages, whether the tetractys, the tree of life, .. or all ancient traditions (ai Zaruana Akarana, IAO, .. - see Schema FMC00.627). An initiation manual such as IIH leads you to that experience of Unity in step 10, but before that, you pass through steps 5-6 with the depth point and step 8 and by that time you have developed your own direct experience of stuff that is reflected in libraries full of occult writings that our head cannot get around intellectually without the experience. That is the point I've been trying to make from our first exchange.

Now this experience is the greatest one can aim to make here in incarnate life, but it's clear it's not the end .. there are levels above that (Kether) it's just that it is not something we can sensibly think or write about because it so much beyond our current level of consciousness. I've tried to illustrate that on the right of Schema FMC00.416A.

Also, you will find that one cannot progress if one does not balance once's character, hence morality and love are intrinsic in progress .. "Progress in spiritual training is not thinkable without a corresponding moral progress".

Last, you introduce the question of the Christ principle or impulse. Also that is too important to address in a sentence of two. But what Steiner describes as the Christ a cosmic principle of planetary evolution, it relates to pure selflessness and love as a spiritual principle in the higher spirit world (re Schema FMC00.481) .. and it can be linked into all what is initiation science. Only, most traditions don't call it that way .. as Christianity is still seen as a religion .. and also because technically you don't need to .. that is why Bardon's system of initiation is totally agnostic of any religion or belief system. It works because you don't need it, and people have fallen over religion and belief systems due to differences in culture, traditions, organized religion etc. Steiner tried to show how they do not contradict each other but are all part of the same wisdom brought by the spiritual guidance of humanity by teachers from the white lodge. However for most of humanity the inner (geographical) strata of differences due to incarnations and lives in different cultures and traditions and religions is still much stronger than that people are willing and able to take a step back and gain the insight through intellectual grasp, also because it's not exactly a quick bite, not an easy thing to do .. it requires quite an investment.

What this site tries to do is to make these things more easy and approachable, so one can gain such insights more easily .. also how the outer and inner mysteries of old are still there today, only they have taken new forms.

I'm not familiar with Traditionalism, but just to add a few references to Steiner on the subject. The statement "God is free" or "God is unfree" predicates something about God. Steiner said that to the highest no predicate can be added (see this lecture; the passage, several paragraphs long, starts with "Let us suppose that we encounter"). In this connection, his mentions of Erigena and negative theology also come to mind. Moreover, the concepts 'freedom' and 'necessity' cannot be uncritically carried over from objects even to human actions; freedom of will entails seeming paradoxes where a person freely chooses what is necessary.

With respect to reincarnation, it may be helpful to consider an historical point of view in addition to metaphysics. Aside from his own lectures, Steiner also mentions that Lessing reached such a view.

(to Ablaut) Thanks, that was helpful as well. I took a break from studying Steiner in order to examine some other sources concerning esotericism (to avoid getting attached to one source too strongly and keep an objective, dispassionate attitude) and I forgot about some important passages from his other lecture courses.