|
Post by notnotthing on Jan 9, 2019 4:40:03 GMT
In the Magical Revival, Grant goes after Steiner claiming he was not an Initiate. After that, maybe I missed it but I did not see him mention Steiner again. It seems a bit peculiar to go after him so hard and then never again. And why Steiner specifically?
From what I can tell he was rather respected in his time, notably being appointed head of the Theosophic school without ever being a member, which is unusual as like most they promote from within. Many other contributions to society and the arts, medicine, etc.
I have a few of his books, one very curious one on Atlantis and Lemuria, very unlike others in its class. He used Keys throughout in a very technical way, in a little innocuous looking book. Have you ever heard of a sorcerer encoding a method to contact his essence in a little book? He turned up...I chose not to speak, as it was not what I would call intrusive, but 'I am here' vibrated, and I sensed a presence. I may engage a conversation at some point.
Anyway, curious why Grant called him out like that, he seems genuine enough.
|
|
bryan
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Steiner
Jan 14, 2019 12:26:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by bryan on Jan 14, 2019 12:26:32 GMT
In my personal opinion, Steiner comes across as Christian science. Some of his ideas are perhaps relevant but reading his work is like listening to a bunch of armchair theorists..... Just my experience with the Steiner material.
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Jan 14, 2019 13:55:06 GMT
Hey Bryan, I've not read a ton of his work, but I can describe what made me take a harder look at him. This little book below came recommended by an initiated source, which I was advised I can discuss (I think, but if weird stuff starts happening I may redact), although it is readily available to anyone, this one was specifically highlighted. Just a word of caution, I don't think this post will cause a problem at the high level of detail, but I have experienced intrusive impingement, maybe intrusive is too strong a word, but 'hello' without asking or inviting.
| This looks like a little run of the mill book on Atlantis and Lemuria, which you might expect some mundane history, or nutty lore passed on or invented by who knows who, where or when. |
|
| | Inspection of the table of contents looks mundane enough. But, interestingly, there are some key numbers in place, notably 111 and 121, one could argue 7 and 13 as well. Maybe a coincidence? |
| While reading the book, I noticed curious letters on certain pages. In this image, the letter B is at the bottom left of the page. What is that? A misprint, typo, artifact? It is not on every page. Also note the page number. There are others similar, but not on every page, and there does not seem to be an apparent pattern. | |
| | This prompted me to perform a bit of a deeper analysis. Please excuse the chicken scratch, as this is a work in progress. But correlating the strange letters with the table of contents yields more keys. Obvious examples include 251, the VRIHL force, and the last page, 131, another well known key. |
| Finally, on the Christian Science front, the last chapter is all about Lucifer, not positive or negative (although if I had to make a firm ruling it would on the positive side), but more of a presentation of facts from his viewpoint. | |
Anyway, when I see Key indicators, it means there is another level of information indicated, beyond the mundane text. And this kind of Work is typically accomplished only by high level Initiates. More to do on the analysis, but when I discovered this next level structure, it made me wonder about Grant's comments, because this is not something a drip or charlatan can do. On the contrary, it seems he may be a legitimate Master. But not all his books are like this, very few in fact, among his corpus.
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Jan 15, 2019 6:22:43 GMT
Well, this is the same formula the Cultus Sabbatai use. Steiner published his book in 1923. Same formula used by Zos, Chumbley, Schulke, etc. I guess I answered my own question. So, not Steiner's invention, but a secret formula, the most ancient of formulas, but he may have some unique spells applied to it in his book. I still don't get Grant's comments, maybe he is implying Steiner pilfered it? I can't see that, but maybe he knew some back story.
|
|
|
Post by The Double-wanded One on Jan 15, 2019 8:15:00 GMT
This is quite amazing, to be frank, keep us informed on your progress here!
(edit; and Christian occultism is all good. Not a Christian myself but I have deep respect for their great intellectuals)
|
|
|
Post by notnotthing on Jan 15, 2019 16:00:07 GMT
This is quite amazing, to be frank, keep us informed on your progress here! (edit; and Christian occultism is all good. Not a Christian myself but I have deep respect for their great intellectuals) Christian mysticism is often misunderstood because of the term itself, relating to the stigma brought on the faction by the dogma of the mundane cult. However, I've encountered some very heavy stuff from legitimate Christian mystics, and at some point the lines blur. The term really applies to the study of the return and resurrection, which is built into the universe, not something they invented. My opinion is that Judaism misinterpreted many of these aspects in the Old Testament, which is loaded with these concepts, and the Christian aspect was not so much a reformation as an elaboration on that. Sadly, that seems to have gotten all befuddled too, possibly on purpose by the wicked. Other factors are mis-translations, on purpose or by error, resulting in the literal interpretation of the highest mysticism. Theosophy very much rests on this 'Christian' doctrine, but they do not worship Jesus as a god, a teacher yes. If the cults knew the real origin story of Jesus their heads would explode. That said, Steiner is definitely Theosophist at his core, but I don't know he ever claimed a specific Christian alignment.
|
|
|
Post by Raj Don Yasser on Jan 17, 2019 19:51:46 GMT
While I haven't read any of Steiner's work since the late 90's, I do recall his having a strong back ground in theosophy prior to founding his school of anthroposophy. In all honestly, I'm much more impressed with the Waldorf educational system than his books. While residing near Santa Fe I had the opportunity to visit a Waldorf school and was absolutely amazed at their approach to learning. Whenever a parent asks my opinion on alternatives to public school, I always refer them to a local Waldorf school.
|
|
|
Post by The Double-wanded One on Mar 17, 2019 7:42:19 GMT
In my personal opinion, Steiner comes across as Christian science. Some of his ideas are perhaps relevant but reading his work is like listening to a bunch of armchair theorists..... Just my experience with the Steiner material. It's weird you say this when Steiner's whole body of work emphasizes practical, personal experience of Gnosis and methods of extracting useful philosophical and existential knowledge from it.
|
|
ada
New Member
"I entered the great perfection and was lost."
Posts: 2
|
Post by ada on May 5, 2020 0:47:22 GMT
I am wondering if anyone can shed some authoritative light on whether Steiner was a member of the OTO. Assuming this would have to be during the pre-Crowley period.
I have heard people I respect make conflicting claims, some saying he was in fact a member of the 9 degree, and others making the counter claim that he was never a member.
FWIW, I always kind of respected the fact that he did not stay with Theosophy. Blavatsky aside, Bessant and Ledbeatter (spelling?) always struck me as pretentious sham artists of the worst sort.
_a
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on May 5, 2020 10:46:22 GMT
There is this from the O.T.O. U.S. Grand Lodge :
"Rudolph Steiner (1861-1925), who was at the time the Secretary General of the German branch of the Theosophical Society, was chartered in 1906 as Deputy Grand Master of a subordinate O.T.O./Memphis/Mizraim Chapter and Grand Council called “Mystica Aeterna” in Berlin. Steiner went on to found the Anthroposophical Society in 1912, and ended his association with Reuss in 1914."
The problem here is whether there was an O.T.O. association. The O.T.O. emerged from several different organisations, and it may be that Steiner had a loose connection to Memphis-Mizraim. It may also be that the connection was loose at best, one of several such affiliations at the time.
|
|
bryan
New Member
Posts: 20
|
Steiner
May 6, 2020 10:28:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by bryan on May 6, 2020 10:28:58 GMT
@the double wanded one Perhaps arm chair theorist, is not the narrative that best describes the Steiner material. The concept of a Christian community and the alignment with the christ material only suggests a religious tenet which breaks down into a new model of Christian ideals. Its a good model for socialism I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Banyan on Apr 14, 2022 12:55:18 GMT
I have a friend who is a qualified Waldorf teacher, she speaks very highly of it. She mentioned that the training for it can trigger some unusual experiences (sleep paralysis, visions and the like).
|
|
|
Post by x51 on Sept 29, 2022 13:54:51 GMT
+1 on the Waldorf school praise. I've heard/seen/read a lot of good coming out of those programs.
When I go back to Magical Revival (re-reading all the trilogies soon) I'll keep an eye out for the Steiner passage. As an admirer of Steiner's work (and a reader of multiple biographies), I wonder how much of this is just differences in personality. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kenneth Grant wasn't much of a public lecturer, while Steiner would give a two and half hour lecture on the virtues of keeping a manicured lawn if you asked him about it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Staley on Oct 17, 2022 10:07:20 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kenneth Grant wasn't much of a public lecturer . . . No, he certainly wasn't. I'm not aware of him having given any lectures at all; it simply wasn't his temperament.
|
|