stefos

Rudolf Steiner........Anthroposophy

Recommended Posts

Arrrgh !

 

(got done by a necro ! )

 

.....   AGAIN !

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

I was curious to see what the posters here had to say about Rudolf Steiner, as I recently was invited to a senior meditation group of his where they couldn't really answer any of my in-depth questions to my satisfaction. The meditation itself was extraordinarily basic and geared more to beginners than to an advanced group.  I have read "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How It is Achieved" and there's a lot of good, basic information there. However, I didn't finish the book because it didn't go deep enough and there were things in it that ran contrary to intuition (at least for me). For others, as I am reading here, it might be well suited to their spiritual development.

 

I investigated Stein because, for a brief moment, I had an urge to know more about the Akashic records. His following recommended a book to me, which I purchased but the name of which I can't recall because I got rid of it rather quickly. Although the followers were nice, I was very disappointed in what I experienced and also in what I read.

 

Steiner is intellectually brilliant but I had serious concerns about his depth so I checked out some critiques of Rudolf Steiner online, as I often do when something troubles me. I came across a critique by Osho which resonated with my own intuitive impression of Rudolf Steiner. It might interest posters to read this and I am therefore posting the link.

 

Feel free to share any comments that you may have, as I am certainly receptive to constructive comments.

 

https://southerncrossreview.org/76/osho-steiner.html

 

While readily conceding that Rudolf STEINER WAS A GREAT MIND, Osho goes on to confirm my own conclusions --- that Steiner does not really understand meditation.

 

QUOTE:

 

" Rudolf Steiner does not know what meditation is, and what he calls meditation is concentration. He's completely confused: he calls concentration meditation. Concentration is not meditation. Concentration is again a very, very useful means for scientific thinking. It is to concentrate the mind, narrow the mind, focus the mind on a certain thing. But the mind remains, becomes more focused, becomes more integrated.

Meditation is not concentrating on anything. In fact, it is a relaxing, not narrowing. In concentration there is an object. In meditation there is no object at all. You are simply lost in an objectless consciousness, a diffusion of consciousness. Concentration is exclusive to something, and everything else is excluded from it. It includes only one thing; it excludes everything else."

 

Rubbish !   What would Osho know !

 

One is active meditation, the other passive meditation.  I wrote about this here yesterday . Concentration / meditation is the root of western magic,' tantric'  practice, .

 

 

 

Osho worshippers call silly forced laughing a meditation ! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

you are simply lost in an objectless consciousness

 

This is just a stage, later the recognition of the subject within the subject because a new locus.   
Subject-locus-recognition require no objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Rubbish !   What would Osho know !

 

One is active meditation, the other passive meditation.  I wrote about this here yesterday . Concentration / meditation is the root of western magic,' tantric'  practice, .

 

 

 

Osho worshippers call silly forced laughing a meditation ! 

While I am not a particularly big fan of Osho and some of his practices, my direct experience with the Rudolf Steiner group (both books and "meditation" groups) is consistent with this particular position of Osho's. I can relate to Steiner's writings because intellect (very important in scientific research) was my own major hindrance to the clear vision since I was an intellectual Phi Beta Kappa who took a lot of pride in my intelligence/ego; it took an extraordinary spiritual mentor to move me past the realms of thought in which Steiner's groups seem to be fixated. His techniques are, however, useful and I too employed them at various earlier stages in my spiritual unfolding without realizing that it was what he taught. (I only heard about Rudolf Steiner recently and, while I may go back to the nice friendly groups from time to time since one learns something from everyone and everything, his path is not my path at this point of time.)

Edited by Still_Waters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

This is just a stage, later the recognition of the subject within the subject because a new locus.   
Subject-locus-recognition require no objects.

In pure thought-free awareness, which is understandably difficult to sustain at times, there are no thoughts and hence no objects. At that point, one can shift attention from one aspect of one's nature to the other just as a lucid dreamer can shift perspectives between that of the dream-object and that of the dreamer. One discovers how  to live metaphorically in "two worlds" (virtually) simultaneously.

 

These are great points in a great dialogue, rideforever ! Feel free to share more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nungali said:

Rubbish !   What would Osho know !

 

One is active meditation, the other passive meditation.

yes, this is my experience.  we seem to need both. they work in tandem, until they merge in a way.  Like active meditation on the hara/ dantian and circulation, which at some point expands into "everything" while at the same time still seeing the circulation, along with everything else.  both methods are needed, (at least in my experience, others might have different experiences)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Still_Waters said:

These are great points in a great dialogue, rideforever ! Feel free to share more.

 

I can pose some questions, serious questions that merit some time.

 

 

1.  What is the means through which one knows one is in thought-free-awareness ?

2. What is the means through which thought-free-awareness is lost ?

3. What is the origin of intelligence ?

4. What is the relationship between thought-free-awareness and the physical body and what is the meaning and implication of all experiencers seemingly have a physical body ?

5. Is thought-free-awareness localized to a certain area of the body ?

 

6. Do objects actually exist ?   What does it mean when one person describes an "object" ?

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nungali said:

and , how does one 'shift attention' when having ' pure thought-free awareness,' ?

From my experience, the shifting attention and the focus are two sides to the same coin. When i do martial arts,  I do not focus on only one thing, I am aware of everything, but i am still aware of that one thing. if that makes any sense. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

I can pose some questions, serious questions that merit some time.

 

 

1.  What is the means through which one knows one is in thought-free-awareness ?

2. What is the means through which thought-free-awareness is lost ?

3. What is the origin of intelligence ?

4. What is the relationship between thought-free-awareness and the physical body and what is the meaning and implication of all experiencers seemingly have a physical body ?

5. Is thought-free-awareness localized to a certain area of the body ?

 

6. Do objects actually exist ?   What does it mean when one person describes an "object" ?

 

 

Those are all good questions and serve well as a catalyst for discussion. Based on my direct experiences and/or readings and/or meetings with extraordinary beings, here are my takes on each of your questions. Feel free to comment, question, or provide information refuting my current positions on these subjects.

 

1. Having practiced meditation for years under various spiritual mentors and also having studied clinical psychology in a postgraduate program at NYU, one becomes painfully aware that there are some people who are out of touch in varying degrees to both thoughts and feelings. For such people, no explanation regarding the pure-thought-free awareness is possible. For the others, no explanation should be necessary.

 

Since the thought-free state is virtually impossible to describe in words because words (in most cases) proceed from thoughts and feelings, I am not quite sure how to express the inexpressible in words. Edward Salim Michael, however, aptly notes that, when "one redirects his gaze inwardly to dwell in the silence of his true abode, he will at that moment begin to experience a state of pure uninvolved impersonal awareness". It is alert but uninvolved. That should suffice for now.

 

2. Thought-free awareness initially can be lost very easily. When one has mastered the four-step thought-observation meditations (observation, extinguishing thoughts, creating a thought and watching mental associations, and the mind-jerk to clear the mind completely), one realizes that certain tendencies/urges will trigger mental associations and, from that root, the mental tree grows which eventually can manifest as action. The key is to cut that metaphorical tree at the root as soon as the initial thought/urge arises. One by one, one eliminates the personal separatist urges and , as that progresses, the lapses out of pure thought-free awareness become less and less frequent. Initially, however, one falls out of the thought-free awareness very quickly and quite frequently. Eventually, however, the thought-free awareness becomes more and more continuous.

 

3. The origin of intelligence is something that I have long pondered and, even recently, have changed my position. I would welcome your comments on what I am writing next. The sage Gaudapada, who was a preceptor of Shankaracharya and who wrote a commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, cogently argues that the unity in apparent multiplicity as well as the inherent intelligence is "the very nature of the Effulgent Being". He scoffs at speculative creative theories as mere placebos to satisfy the masses. I am leaning towards his position on that subject --- that intelligence is "the very nature of the Effulgent Being". At first, I thought that this was a great "cop out" (LOL) but, as I meditate on it more and more, I am leaning towards that conclusion and have realized that there are other sages who have similarly come to the same conclusion. I would welcome your comments on this subject as it has raised questions for me many times in the past.

 

4. You seem to have hinted at your position when you refer to "all experiencers seemingly have a physical body ". With your implied position, I agree completely. It is my position that the body is actually a mental projection just as dream-bodies in a dream are a mental projection. Various sages point to this but my direct experiences have supported this position, and I will mention a couple of supporting experiences here in my response to your questions.

 

When I was in my early 20s, I had a near death experience (NDE) during which I emerged from a 3-day "Irreversible Coma" completely symptom-free. (Details of what transpired during the NDE can be discussed at another time, as it was a life-transforming experience.) My parents were told to make the funeral arrangements as there was absolutely no hope whatsoever and, even if I did miraculously come out of the coma, they predicted extensive brain and organ damage. During the NDE, it became clear to me that it was not yet time to leave the physical body behind and that it would be well to return. I was aware of my consciousness slowly returning to the physical form "below" (that which was viewed previously from above) and I sat straight up SYMPTOM-FREE to the amazement of the entire medical staff at the hospital. That convinced me that the mind can change ANYTHING related to the body and that is consistent with the mental-projection point of view.

 

In addition, you may or may not be familiar with the following well-documented multiple-personality-disorder (dissociative disorder nowadays) during which one personality has a serious dis-ease such as diabetes whereas another personality has no trace of the dis-ease. The dis-ease comes and goes instantaneously depending on the mental state (personality) of the person.

 

I could give other examples to support my position on this subject but this should suffice for now.

 

5. It has been my experience that , in thought-free awareness, one drops body consciousness. To answer your question, therefore, I don't find it "localized in any part of the body".

 

6. You ask if objects actually exist. I think that the best answer to this question lies in the apparently paradoxical syllogism of Shankaracharya that is often quoted. When I first read them, they made no sense to me but they now appear to me to be brilliantly eloquent.

 

"The Universe is unreal.

Brahman is real.

But Brahman is the Universe".

 

Syllogistically speaking, this translates is the real is the unreal which presents an apparent paradox.

 

What I believe that Shankaracharya is saying is that the Universe is unreal when one views it as an independent entity. With that perspective, objects are not "real". However, when one realizes that the Universe is a projection of the underlying Reality, one sees objects in a very different light and, in that sense, they are very real. To get back to Gaudapada's position mentioned previously, all is real if one views all as the "very nature of the Effulgent Being".

 

Now, as I mentioned before, feel free to comment, question, challenge, and/or present refuting evidence. These are very deep subjects and I welcome your input and your input might trigger a change in my position.

 

I want to thank you again for serving as a catalyst to a very thought-provoking, illuminating dialogue. Thank you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Still_Waters said:

Those are all good questions

 

I will put some answers below, gradually, but will not cross examine with yours if that's okay.

 

0. On thought free awareness ?

Awareness is a positive existential state and does not need to be thought free.  But as uncontrolled negative thoughts are so damaging to humans they think only in terms of the cessation of thoughts ... and because of this fundamentally misunderstand their situation.  It is in fact the establishment of Awareness (as a newly awakened centre) that causes the cessation of thoughts, and not the cessation of thoughts that uncovers Awareness already existing.
 

1.  What is the means through which one knows one is in thought-free-awareness ?

Our intelligence can detect we are in Awareness, and if we turn on the TV that we are lost in the world mind.   What is the means ?  Well when we "feel our heart" (meaning deep inside) ... how do we know ?
When I see a lamp-post I recognize it.   When I feel the centre of the heart I also recognize it.   Is it the same ?
No.  One is an external recognition of object, the second is the inner-feeling-recognition of a subjective part of our soul ... 2 different channels of recognition using different beams of attention.  One tuned to recognizing external objects, one the parts of the subject.

2. What is the means through which thought-free-awareness is lost ?

Could say that you start to think and then drift into subconsciuos thoughts then you lose it, but this is a negative description.  Truth is unless you wish to be established in Awareness, understand it and see it as yourself, you won't "hold it".   Amongst other things this requires maturity and life experience, and the contrast of suffering, to understand the value of Awareness.


3. What is the origin of intelligence ?

Will have to revisit this one.

4. What is the relationship between thought-free-awareness and the physical body and what is the meaning and implication of all experiencers seemingly have a physical body ?

The implication is that the physical body is an essential part of Awareness and it is no mistake that awakened beings weren't phantasms but bodied beings.   The physical body is the means for awakening, through a long chain of complex events and things happening.  Once Awakening happens a new body is created, the halo is a visual manifestation of the higher body, which eventually grows from being just around the head.  The sound OM is a description of a sound that occurs in the headspace once Awareness is present, it is the vibration of the new body (halo) that is the body of the Awareness.
Awareness and all awakening is actually the splitting of the great soul, and the formation of a semi-independent intelligence.

5. Is thought-free-awareness localized to a certain area of the body ?

Yes in the head.   If I chop your legs off you will still have Awareness, but if I chop the head off then not.
"Awareness" is at the front, "Consciousness" at the back (the halo).
It is common to see enlightenment teachers like Mooji motioning their hands to "behind the head" to indicate what they feel, however they refrain from identifying locations as they are simply stealing the conceptual ideas left by Shankacharya etc.. and don't have the intelligence or conviction to come up with anything new.   Although clearly they feel something different, they feel the location of Consciousness at the back of their head.   
 

6. Do objects actually exist ?   What does it mean when one person describes an "object" ?

I believe the answer might be that we use the word "Object" to denote a primitive or embryonic type of recognition from a fragmented mind and doesn't have the feeling of connectedness with it.   And this is what most humans are experiencing as their mind-recogntion is embryonic primitive and fragmented and also in bad faith.

 

7. ... and , how does one 'shift attention' when having ' pure thought-free awareness,' ?

Shift attention how ? 

From objects to Awareness ?   This is awakening ... energetic cultivation and integration of the centre of Awareness normally through transmission from teacher ... plus self-recognition will combust the centre into Awarnesss, keep on doing it and it becomes permanent.

Or from Consciousness to Awareness ?  Multiple centres can be awakened, the heart, dantien, Consciousness, and the inner-feeling-recognition can feel them all simultaneously or jump from one to another to abide in.

Or from Awareness to external Objects ?  This is the integration of the external world with your state of Awareness ... it is complex and most teachers can't be bothered and live in an Awareness path and discard their outer life.   Walking meditation (zen style) and something like tai chi whilst maintaining Awareness can eventually integrate all together.   Go slow.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rideforever said:

 

I will put some answers below, gradually, but will not cross examine with yours if that's okay.

 

0. On thought free awareness ?

Awareness is a positive existential state and does not need to be thought free.  But as uncontrolled negative thoughts are so damaging to humans they think only in terms of the cessation of thoughts ... and because of this fundamentally misunderstand their situation.  It is in fact the establishment of Awareness (as a newly awakened centre) that causes the cessation of thoughts, and not the cessation of thoughts that uncovers Awareness already existing.
 

1.  What is the means through which one knows one is in thought-free-awareness ?

Our intelligence can detect we are in Awareness, and if we turn on the TV that we are lost in the world mind.   What is the means ?  Well when we "feel our heart" (meaning deep inside) ... how do we know ?
When I see a lamp-post I recognize it.   When I feel the centre of the heart I also recognize it.   Is it the same ?
No.  One is an external recognition of object, the second is the inner-feeling-recognition of a subjective part of our soul ... 2 different channels of recognition using different beams of attention.  One tuned to recognizing external objects, one the parts of the subject.

2. What is the means through which thought-free-awareness is lost ?

Could say that you start to think and then drift into subconsciuos thoughts then you lose it, but this is a negative description.  Truth is unless you wish to be established in Awareness, understand it and see it as yourself, you won't "hold it".   Amongst other things this requires maturity and life experience, and the contrast of suffering, to understand the value of Awareness.


3. What is the origin of intelligence ?

Will have to revisit this one.

4. What is the relationship between thought-free-awareness and the physical body and what is the meaning and implication of all experiencers seemingly have a physical body ?

The implication is that the physical body is an essential part of Awareness and it is no mistake that awakened beings weren't phantasms but bodied beings.   The physical body is the means for awakening, through a long chain of complex events and things happening.  Once Awakening happens a new body is created, the halo is a visual manifestation of the higher body, which eventually grows from being just around the head.  The sound OM is a description of a sound that occurs in the headspace once Awareness is present, it is the vibration of the new body (halo) that is the body of the Awareness.
Awareness and all awakening is actually the splitting of the great soul, and the formation of a semi-independent intelligence.

5. Is thought-free-awareness localized to a certain area of the body ?

Yes in the head.   If I chop your legs off you will still have Awareness, but if I chop the head off then not.
"Awareness" is at the front, "Consciousness" at the back (the halo).
It is common to see enlightenment teachers like Mooji motioning their hands to "behind the head" to indicate what they feel, however they refrain from identifying locations as they are simply stealing the conceptual ideas left by Shankacharya etc.. and don't have the intelligence or conviction to come up with anything new.   Although clearly they feel something different, they feel the location of Consciousness at the back of their head.   
 

6. Do objects actually exist ?   What does it mean when one person describes an "object" ?

I believe the answer might be that we use the word "Object" to denote a primitive or embryonic type of recognition from a fragmented mind and doesn't have the feeling of connectedness with it.   And this is what most humans are experiencing as their mind-recogntion is embryonic primitive and fragmented and also in bad faith.

 

7. ... and , how does one 'shift attention' when having ' pure thought-free awareness,' ?

Shift attention how ? 

From objects to Awareness ?   This is awakening ... energetic cultivation and integration of the centre of Awareness normally through transmission from teacher ... plus self-recognition will combust the centre into Awarnesss, keep on doing it and it becomes permanent.

Or from Consciousness to Awareness ?  Multiple centres can be awakened, the heart, dantien, Consciousness, and the inner-feeling-recognition can feel them all simultaneously or jump from one to another to abide in.

Or from Awareness to external Objects ?  This is the integration of the external world with your state of Awareness ... it is complex and most teachers can't be bothered and live in an Awareness path and discard their outer life.   Walking meditation (zen style) and something like tai chi whilst maintaining Awareness can eventually integrate all together.   Go slow.

 

 

Interesting response. Can you elaborate more on " It is in fact the establishment of Awareness (as a newly awakened centre) that causes the cessation of thoughts, and not the cessation of thoughts that uncovers Awareness already existing."

 

(I have other questions, but will hold off on them until I hear more elaboration on the HOW of what I have asked for further elaboration above.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Still_Waters said:

Can you elaborate

 

Well ... how can Awareness be there if the being is not aware ?
No, it cannot be there.
This is why neti neti approach does not work, because the idea that you are sort of clearing off the dust to reveal the shiny mirror is wrong.  If the mirror is so easily covered over with dust, what is the point of having a mirror ?
So this is all wrong.
Being Awareness means by definition that you are not coverable in dust.  It is incorruptible.
So clearly it is not present in ordinary people and must be developed.

 

Then the next question is, but aren't we simply becoming ourselves ?   
And ourselves is ourselves so is already there, right ?
Not really.  Imagine if you enrol in medical college and study 5 years to become a surgeon.
The you are a surgeon, the surgeon is you, right.
Was it already there ?
No, it was not, it had to be developed.
Your surgeon-ness had to be developed .... of course it is you, it is a possibility for you if you have the talent, but might or might not be developed.

 

And this is why people spend decades on meditation trying to neti neti themselves and it often doesn't work.
In fact what works is to have the state of Awareness transmitted to you by a teacher in that state ... how ?  Well just hang around for a while and feel him, inside you.  Often at the same time people are doing neti neti but it's irrelevant.
1. The state is energetically transmitted, 2. then recognized within from directions by the teacher (I feel Awareness in me), 3. then it is developed (I abide in this new Awareness).

 

Another way of understanding is that the corrupt cannot clean themselves as they have only dirty water.   Even if they could remove the dirt, it still does not mean that Awareness is there, because a box cleaned of dust is still not filled with god.
Pouring gold into the box automatically removes the dust permanently.

 

----

 

Something else is that we are very complicated beings with many parts : some people can be healthy holy real humans, others holy by being awakened heart, others have Awareness, others Consciousness, and so on.  And it is not so easy to diagnose what another person is, could be many things going on inside.   And it is also true that with the correct guidance you can feel your truth immediately, but it will pass quickly unless it takes root.   There are a small number of people who on meeting a guru can pop into awareness probably because they were very close in a previous life. 

 

Edited by rideforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, rideforever said:

 

Well ... how can Awareness be there if the being is not aware ?
No, it cannot be there.
This is why neti neti approach does not work, because the idea that you are sort of clearing off the dust to reveal the shiny mirror is wrong.  If the mirror is so easily covered over with dust, what is the point of having a mirror ?
So this is all wrong.
Being Awareness means by definition that you are not coverable in dust.  It is incorruptible.
So clearly it is not present in ordinary people and must be developed.

 

Then the next question is, but aren't we simply becoming ourselves ?   
And ourselves is ourselves so is already there, right ?
Not really.  Imagine if you enrol in medical college and study 5 years to become a surgeon.
The you are a surgeon, the surgeon is you, right.
Was it already there ?
No, it was not, it had to be developed.
Your surgeon-ness had to be developed .... of course it is you, it is a possibility for you if you have the talent, but might or might not be developed.

 

And this is why people spend decades on meditation trying to neti neti themselves and it often doesn't work.
In fact what works is to have the state of Awareness transmitted to you by a teacher in that state ... how ?  Well just hang around for a while and feel him, inside you.  Often at the same time people are doing neti neti but it's irrelevant.
1. The state is energetically transmitted, 2. then recognized within from directions by the teacher (I feel Awareness in me), 3. then it is developed (I abide in this new Awareness).

 

Another way of understanding is that the corrupt cannot clean themselves as they have only dirty water.   Even if they could remove the dirt, it still does not mean that Awareness is there, because a box cleaned of dust is still not filled with god.
Pouring gold into the box automatically removes the dust permanently.

 

----

 

Something else is that we are very complicated beings with many parts : some people can be healthy holy real humans, others holy by being awakened heart, others have Awareness, others Consciousness, and so on.  And it is not so easy to diagnose what another person is, could be many things going on inside.   And it is also true that with the correct guidance you can feel your truth immediately, but it will pass quickly unless it takes root.   There are a small number of people who on meeting a guru can pop into awareness probably because they were very close in a previous life. 

 

There are obviously different levels of awareness as even a mentally disturbed person is aware of objects and people around them. Often, their impressions are colored by their conditioning/thoughts/limited-life-experiences/etc.

 

I agree that neti-neti is not the way to "enlightenment". Saying what one is not does not reveal what one really is. We agree on the issues associated with neti-neti.

 

I am quite familiar with the dusting of the mirror analogy. It was highlighted in the story about the 6th Zen Master. I am not saying that.

 

Are you suggesting that, in order to know yourself, that must be transmitted energetically by a teacher ? Are you suggesting that the only way to know yourself is through transmission via another?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/21/2018 at 5:03 AM, Still_Waters said:

I was curious to see what the posters here had to say about Rudolf Steiner, as I recently was invited to a senior meditation group of his where they couldn't really answer any of my in-depth questions to my satisfaction. The meditation itself was extraordinarily basic and geared more to beginners than to an advanced group.  I have read "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How It is Achieved" and there's a lot of good, basic information there. However, I didn't finish the book because it didn't go deep enough and there were things in it that ran contrary to intuition (at least for me). For others, as I am reading here, it might be well suited to their spiritual development.

 

I investigated Stein because, for a brief moment, I had an urge to know more about the Akashic records. His following recommended a book to me, which I purchased but the name of which I can't recall because I got rid of it rather quickly. Although the followers were nice, I was very disappointed in what I experienced and also in what I read.

 

Steiner is intellectually brilliant but I had serious concerns about his depth so I checked out some critiques of Rudolf Steiner online, as I often do when something troubles me. I came across a critique by Osho which resonated with my own intuitive impression of Rudolf Steiner. It might interest posters to read this and I am therefore posting the link.

 

Feel free to share any comments that you may have, as I am certainly receptive to constructive comments.

 

https://southerncrossreview.org/76/osho-steiner.html

 

While readily conceding that Rudolf STEINER WAS A GREAT MIND, Osho goes on to confirm my own conclusions --- that Steiner does not really understand meditation.

 

QUOTE:

 

" Rudolf Steiner does not know what meditation is, and what he calls meditation is concentration. He's completely confused: he calls concentration meditation. Concentration is not meditation. Concentration is again a very, very useful means for scientific thinking. It is to concentrate the mind, narrow the mind, focus the mind on a certain thing. But the mind remains, becomes more focused, becomes more integrated.

Meditation is not concentrating on anything. In fact, it is a relaxing, not narrowing. In concentration there is an object. In meditation there is no object at all. You are simply lost in an objectless consciousness, a diffusion of consciousness. Concentration is exclusive to something, and everything else is excluded from it. It includes only one thing; it excludes everything else."

 

While a good point is made in this - it is also incorrect in the general sense by the wording “you are simply lost in objectless Consciousness, diffusion of Consciousness”

 

One is not “lost” at all in the greater sense - unless one has gone into trance - which would not be meditation either. And it is a form of concentration in that it is a bit like turbid water that has settled - and the impurities have dropped away and the clarity / purity is now the main aspect. 

 

The Awareness is non- object awareness - no longer diffused in the refraction of object / multiple particles of contraction / dispersal of light and obscurance..

 

A boundless yet unscattered Awareness.

 

 

Edited by Spotless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Still_Waters said:

There are obviously different levels of awareness as even a mentally disturbed person is aware of objects and people around them. Often, their impressions are colored by their conditioning/thoughts/limited-life-experiences/etc.

 

Are you suggesting that, in order to know yourself, that must be transmitted energetically by a teacher ? Are you suggesting that the only way to know yourself is through transmission via another?

 

Awareness is the State of Awareness which is a pure state of self-recognition, meaning a high order of intelligence that comprehends the inner structure of the being.    It is not native to Earth and has to be brought in from outside or transmitted from light to light (being to being).   In rare cases the devotion of a seeker will invoke grace from outside, that seeker then may become a teacher.   What is transmitted is a high energetic state and high intelligence.

 

But such a state is also not needed for a human to be "holy",  people like Steiner / Montessori point to a more natural awakened state, the real human (divine human).   Such people are simply real and human and don't need all the fancy inner stuff.

 

An ordinary human : their identity and sense of things is in fact simply part of the great-spirit that is borrowed.  On the death of the body that spirit pours back to mix completely with the ocean of spirit and nothing that was that person really remains.  Which is not a problem.

 

In a "holy" being a crystalisation has occurred to the spirit during its time in the human body, and when the body breaks the spirit returns to the ocean but it remains together as a being, it does not dissolve in the ocean.  It is for this reason it is "immortal" meaning it's independent structure will not dissolve when it returns to the ocean, because it is fused together.  Because of this integrity and fusion it reflects a higher degree of existence and has access to higher states that are pure.  

 

That is my understanding of things.  Nevertheless due to the complex nature of a human being and the lack of high quality spirituality on earth, it is difficult to know if within most humans is something, or is nothing.

 

Edited by rideforever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, rideforever said:

An ordinary human : their identity and sense of things is in fact simply part of the great-spirit that is borrowed.  On the death of the body that spirit pours back to mix completely with the ocean of spirit and nothing that was that person really remains.  Which is not a problem.

This reminds me of an old zen story:

"  A zen student approaches his teacher who is a great zen master and ask,  "master,  what happens after we die".. To wit the zen master says,  "I don't know".. This shocks the young zen student, and he replies, "But you are a great zen master, how is it that you do not know what happens to us after we die"?........ The zen master answers, "yes, it is said that I am a great zen master, but I am not yet a dead zen master".  LOL.  just love that one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Spotless said:

 

While a good point is made in this - it is also incorrect in the general sense by the wording “you are simply lost in objectless Consciousness, diffusion of Consciousness”

 

One is not “lost” at all in the greater sense - unless one has gone into trance - which would not be meditation either. And it is a form of concentration in that it is a bit like turbid water that has settled - and the impurities have dropped away and the clarity / purity is now the main aspect. 

 

The Awareness is non- object awareness - no longer diffused in the refraction of object / multiple particles of contraction / dispersal of light and obscurance..

 

A boundless yet unscattered Awareness.

 

 

Actually, one does "lose one's self" in "undifferentiated consciousness" (my preference in terminology) in the clear vision state and, when one needs to interact, one simply activates one's mind and assumes one's role in this play of consciousness. One eventually "lives in two worlds" (so to speak) with the clear vision intuitively and unerringly guiding one's steps in stark contrast to the self-limiting perspective of the little separatist self. When one clears the mind completely, one soars like an eagle into the metaphorical sky of consciousness, sees the big picture, and returns with that "knowing without thinking" perspective. This dialogue is going deeper than most, and I thank you for moving in this direction.

 

There is a Zen saying: "Equality without differentiation is poor equality; but differentiation without equality is poor differentiation". That seems as good a way as any to express this.

 

The Sufis call it "dying before death". I believe that St. Paul explicitly refers to "losing one's self in God" but correct me if I'm wrong on that one. Another master positively refers to the process as "resurrection in God" instead of the less positive "annihilation/destruction of the little self".

 

Good points ! Feel free to comment further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Zen Pig said:

This reminds me of an old zen story:

"  A zen student approaches his teacher who is a great zen master and ask,  "master,  what happens after we die".. To wit the zen master says,  "I don't know".. This shocks the young zen student, and he replies, "But you are a great zen master, how is it that you do not know what happens to us after we die"?........ The zen master answers, "yes, it is said that I am a great zen master, but I am not yet a dead zen master".  LOL.  just love that one.

The Prophet Mohammed is reported to have said something similar but with a different thrust. Say, "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner." (Surah 46:9)

 

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=46&verse=9

 

Mohammed preached surrender (to Allah) and his statement above demonstrates the completeness of his surrender. By saying that he does not know what will become of him, my sense (and I've discussed this with Imams and Shaiks) is that, upon leaving the physical form behind, he will continue to surrender to God and hence does not know what will become of him. It is very similar to the "Thy Will Be Done" passage in the Christian Lord's prayer.

 

The Zen saying is cute, but I find the Mohammed quote to be far more revealing on the nature of surrender and unitary consciousness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Still_Waters said:

The Zen saying is cute

From a zen perspective, this is the highest complement.  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rideforever said:

 

Awareness is the State of Awareness which is a pure state of self-recognition, meaning a high order of intelligence that comprehends the inner structure of the being.    It is not native to Earth and has to be brought in from outside or transmitted from light to light (being to being).   In rare cases the devotion of a seeker will invoke grace from outside, that seeker then may become a teacher.   What is transmitted is a high energetic state and high intelligence.

 

But such a state is also not needed for a human to be "holy",  people like Steiner / Montessori point to a more natural awakened state, the real human (divine human).   Such people are simply real and human and don't need all the fancy inner stuff.

 

An ordinary human : their identity and sense of things is in fact simply part of the great-spirit that is borrowed.  On the death of the body that spirit pours back to mix completely with the ocean of spirit and nothing that was that person really remains.  Which is not a problem.

 

In a "holy" being a crystalisation has occurred to the spirit during its time in the human body, and when the body breaks the spirit returns to the ocean but it remains together as a being, it does not dissolve in the ocean.  It is for this reason it is "immortal" meaning it's independent structure will not dissolve when it returns to the ocean, because it is fused together.  Because of this integrity and fusion it reflects a higher degree of existence and has access to higher states that are pure.  

 

That is my understanding of things.  Nevertheless due to the complex nature of a human being and the lack of high quality spirituality on earth, it is difficult to know if within most humans is something, or is nothing.

 

My spiritual mentors have focused on making the disciples "lights unto themselves" and not dependent on a "transmission" from another being in the realm of duality. Our paths are obviously different, and that will not change for me.

 

As for your statement that  "people like Steiner / Montessori point to a more natural awakened state, the real human (divine human)", I have done readings from Steiner and met with many senior Steiner disciples. They are so intellectually-oriented that I do not consider them to be in a "more natural awakened state" nor do I want to proceed in any way to be more like them. I've been fixated in the intellectual in the past and have no intention of going back there again. You have to choose the practices best suited to yourself, and Steiner may indeed be best for you at this point in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zen Pig said:

From a zen perspective, this is the highest complement.  :)

Personally, I LOVED your Zen story and, as you can see, I did a "like" on it. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites