Rudolf Steiner 150 years and the future of Anthroposophy
“Anthroposophy” we call, what Rudolf Steiner laid out in his comprehensive and supposedly epoch-making work. When I use this term, I always think that it is about this Austrian Steiner, who developed his aspects of life issues and arts as well as natural science and transcendental research that has had a social and practical significance for a number of areas of life such as education, agriculture, medicine and architecture. Since his death nearly 86 years ago, however, the word anthroposophy in public is not only used about Steiner’s own work, but also about anything related to the so-called anthroposophical movement that arose around his person and activities. Everything of later date, which is equivalent to it and that later so-called anthroposophists have achieved, is also called anthroposophy. Steiner himself once said that it would be good to find new names for Anthroposophy every week. Maybe he meant that one could use any name that eventually like this would occur, precisely to distinguish between the different qualities that different people would then represent out of their individual relation to “anthroposophy”.
So the question is, if we should continue to think so and let Anthroposophy keep on as “anthroposophy” or should I grab up Steiner’s advice and call what lived on by anthroposophists with one or more new concepts? The following terms might be relevant, if I link them up to his name, the place, Dornach, where he worked in Switzerland or to the central motifs in his workings: Steinersophy, Steinerianism, Steinerianity, Rudolfianism, Rudolfethics, Dornachianism, Goetheanumsophy, Goetheanumlogics, Karmasophy, Karmanianism, Egosophy, Christsophy, Christianism, Dynamism and Dynamosophy. Only when someone comes and declares to be able to confirm Steiner’s statements and results, we could really talk about anthroposophy in the original sense of the word, although this also couldn’t prove – otherwise than by fact that more and more acknowledge and confirm the same issue. Everything else should be considered as individual and group-related interpretations and life philosophies in the style of the proposed terms, which, however, is completely useless.
I put the initial concept of Anthroposophy in quotes, because it is hardly possible to discuss anthroposophy without getting into trouble with each other, since each has a different opinion about it, depending on what you have studied, or what experience you have in relation to realization of the content of anthroposophy. And if you’re in a conversation without first defining precisely or refine your understanding of how you look at the contents of what Steiner presented, it becomes difficult to discuss the details. So let me therefore mention two things that for me characterizes the core of Rudolf Steiner’s Anthroposophy, as I perceive it and what for me has been crucial in relation to individualize and putting into practice Steiner’s advices and instructions.
Steiner’s project went out for two things that were related to each other as “hand in glove”, as synthesis and antithesis or as yin and yang: First, he required pursuing a European-based philosophy of reincarnation and karma. Secondly, it was about associating this with Christianity’s esoteric core or reverse to open it or to access the source of Christianity, thus bringing it into equivalence with the reincarnation idea. Everything else of what Steiner wrote, said or practiced was related to these two areas of responsibilities. Steiner himself thus characterized by the term anthroposophist just a man who exercised or developed a genuine, honest and practical plus meditative relation to these tasks.
Look at the beginning of his activities in the Theosophical Society in 1902: Immediate he announced that he would convey “practical karma exercises”! Look at his basic books and lectures ranking until World War I: They are about Christology, reincarnation and karma! View his mystery dramas: The present is set in relation to previous lives and set on the stage! Look at the first Goetheanum building and the lectures during the First World War: Almost everything is about past cultures, spiritual and karmic current backgrounds to the contemporary crises! Look at the esoteric teaching for members of the Anthroposophical Society, for the members of the School of Spiritual Science (including the former ES) and on his methodology and didactics for professionals within the subsidiary motions: much about self-awareness, training in relation to the issues of fate, karmic laws in education, medicine, etc. Even descriptions of how to develop a relationship with nature beings in agricultural shows going on one’s own karmic point of view – and he quoted to the young generation who had met up in Koberwitz that it is about looking back at least on seven previous lives.
Why did he use so much time and energy on wanting to associate Christianity with the idea of reincarnation and vice versa? Probably it wasn’t about feeding the egoism of the readers and listeners, but to give perspectives on the individual point of view in relation to the fact of working with a specific project. Steiner was in fact based on his personal experience and thus convinced that the individual through the cognition of karma can access his latent resources and skills and can start to sort out the karmic relationship to his fellows and that this is best completed, if this course is done in open and honest cooperation in the esoteric area. Therefore, he founded the internal exercise circles, groups, and colleges and finally an alternative to a social model and a new spiritual foundation for professional education at university level.
Was all this just ideals and recipes? Yes, ideals and recipes for art of living, but somebody who sits down and try out in concrete, for example, some of his meditations or karma exercises, will soon find that the spiritual world is responding. In such terms Steiner and all his works remain and subsist as a “chips” (SIM card) to direct contact with the deceased, with angels and Christ. These facts I know from own sublime, painful and happy experiences. Thus and only then, Steiner’s anthroposophy can find independent and comprehensive trade off today and tomorrow. People who so believe they have experienced the spiritual or karmic things authentic, however, will soon be facing a problem: How to translate their inner experiences that were possibly made in a meditative state, to communicate in a useful language? How and to whom can one talk about and communicate such experiences and realizations? Where are the forums that have a high enough ceiling for my ethical individualism?
I myself have struggled, worked, suffered and rejoiced during 14 years with this translation and communication projects and interestingly found very little aural among so-called “principal anthroposophists”. Similarly, it has gone for a dozen and hundreds of friends and colleagues to me in several European countries, who believe they have much to contribute in relation to a continuation of Anthroposophy. Yes, interestingly enough, it is now actually possible not only to confirm Steiner in many areas of his transcendent research, but also to expand his views, yes, even to correct him on some important points, as the earth, mankind and the spiritual world situation today has become a completely different than it was before Nazism.
When, for example, applying some of Steiner’s statements about a prehistoric Atlantis civilization, I have confirmed some of them in books and other publications. Who is interested in this? Who is at all interested that the content, aspects and results in Rudolf Steiner’s works can be confirmed? Who wants his anthroposophy just now and in the next time after 2012 to be detected as a possible source of genuine insight into the spiritual realities that can bear a lot of individual anthroposophy? Who will support such individuals and researchers, both morally and possibly financially (if they ever need it), which apparently has managed to realize some of Steiner’s recipes – which can serve other than such “anthroposophical boil” as the Archangel Michael may only see as a Swedish sorts “puddle in the pan” (Swedish: pytt i panna) – that is stew?
To celebrate the Rudolf Steiner 150th birthday doesn’t work for me so much by examining Steiner or to travel to the places where he lived and worked, nor does it ask for placing his “left cabinet” up to public spectacle. Such has been done enough and more than enough during the time after his death. I am thinking only on the incredibly aesthetically beautiful and famous peripatetic exhibitions that my teacher and colleague Arne Klingborg initiated and conducted in several countries around the theme of Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, architecture and landscape art from 1961 and forward to the mid 80’s. What the individuality behind the name “Rudolf Steiner” today certainly would prefer – while he in his supposedly existing incarnation in good health is ”sitting on the fence” watching the anthroposophists’ feverish selfishness and bad conscience on his behalf, as they try to hide by covering themselves with his former works – is that they show for themselves, for each other and for the outside world, how they live and work with the task of associating Christianity with karma understanding – a spiritual “Michael Mandate”, which he simply called: ethical individualism. Rudolf Steiner went miles forward on his way; who wants to follow in his footsteps, in order to refresh himself without resorting into dependence to him?
Author: Jostein Sæther
Image: Detail of a portrait of Rudolf Steiner (Weimar 1892), painted by Otto Froehlich.





