Humans? What humans?

 

The answers to the first two questions are pretty basic, but I suppose it´s interesting that ChatGPT "knows" it, too. But...I also asked the system a third question and the answer might shock you!!! :D  

What is the least anthropocentric religion, in your estimation?

That’s a fascinating and difficult question — and one philosophers of religion wrestle with often. "Least anthropocentric" would mean a religion or philosophy that:

• Doesn’t treat human beings as the central concern of the cosmos,

• Doesn’t see the gods as primarily existing to bless or punish humans,

• Frames reality in terms of cosmic processes, laws, or consciousness that would exist whether humans were here or not.

Let’s survey some candidates across traditions:

---

1. Theravāda Buddhism

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The Dharma is not “about humans” but about the nature of suffering and its cessation — a law as universal as gravity.

  • Beings of all types (gods, animals, humans, spirits) are equally subject to impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and non-self (anattā).

  • No creator god with human concerns. Even gods (devas) are impermanent and bound by the same laws.

• Key idea: Dharma is cosmic law, not human-centered morality.

• Drawback: Some interpretations still see human rebirth as the “best chance” for liberation, which is a kind of anthropocentrism.

---

2. Advaita Vedānta (Hinduism)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The only reality is Brahman — impersonal, infinite consciousness.

  • The human world (and even the gods) are maya, a projection.

  • Liberation isn’t about human concerns but about realizing impersonal absolute reality.

• Key idea: Humans are not central at all, just temporary forms of Brahman.

• Drawback: Still frames the purpose of realization in terms of human liberation.

---

3. Daoism (classical, Laozi/Zhuangzi)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • Central concern is the Dao (the Way), the spontaneous order of nature.

  • Humans are just one manifestation among “the ten thousand things.”

  • The sage harmonizes with the Dao, not by imposing human will but by non-action (wu wei) and yielding to the flow of nature.

• Key idea: Cosmic processes matter more than human ones; the Dao would “flow” whether humans exist or not.

• Drawback: Still gives guidance for human flourishing (longevity, balance).

---

4. Stoicism (ancient Greco-Roman)

• Why non-anthropocentric?

  • The universe is governed by Logos, a rational, cosmic order.

  • Humans are rational animals, but their role is just to align with the universal order, not to dominate it.

• Key idea: Cosmic order > human desires.

• Drawback: Stoics often emphasize human virtue, so anthropocentric in practice.

---

5. Zoroastrianism?

• Actually quite anthropocentric: humans are the battleground between Ahura Mazda (good) and Angra Mainyu (evil).

---

6. Indigenous Animisms

• Many animistic traditions see spirits in rivers, trees, stones, animals, etc.

• Why non-anthropocentric? Humans are just one part of the web of beings. The spirits don’t exist for us; they have their own agency.

• Drawback: In practice, ritual often centers on human survival (crops, health, hunting luck).

---

My Estimation

If I had to choose the least anthropocentric religion/philosophy, I’d say:

• Advaita Vedānta: Humans and even gods are “maya”; only impersonal Brahman is real.

• Theravāda Buddhism: The Dharma applies to all beings equally, human or not.

• Classical Daoism: Nature’s way is utterly impersonal; humans are just one current in a greater flow.

Between these, Advaita Vedānta might win, because it outright declares human life, gods, worlds — all appearances, not ultimately real. From that perspective, the universe isn’t “about” humans at all.

---

👉 Would you like me to make a ranking list of religions from most to least anthropocentric, based on their cosmology and soteriology? That might clarify things.

Yes.

Great — here’s a ranking of religions/philosophical traditions from most to least anthropocentric, based on their cosmology (what reality is about) and soteriology (how liberation/salvation is conceived).

---

📊 Religions Ranked by Anthropocentrism

Most Anthropocentric

1. Abrahamic Monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

   • God creates the universe for humans, gives humans dominion over Earth, salvation is for humans.

   • History itself is “human-centered.”

   • Angels and even creation often exist to serve human destiny.

2. Zoroastrianism

   • Cosmic battle between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman plays out through human moral choices.

   • Humans are the decisive arena of the war between good and evil.

3. Hindu Bhakti Traditions (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism in devotional form)

   • God or Goddess manifests in forms accessible to humans.

   • The cosmic līlā (divine play) often revolves around human devotion.

   • But less anthropocentric than Abrahamics, since gods also play out cosmic dramas beyond humanity.

4. Mahayana Buddhism

   • Universal compassion extends to all beings, not just humans.

   • Bodhisattvas vow to save beings in all realms.

   • Still, humans are seen as having the best opportunity for enlightenment (more central than animals/gods).

5. Theravāda Buddhism

   • Dharma is universal: gods, humans, animals — all subject to impermanence.

   • Humans are not the center, but rebirth as a human is privileged because it balances suffering and opportunity.

6. Stoicism (Greco-Roman)

   • Humans are not rulers of the cosmos but participants in the Logos.

   • Anthropocentric only in that humans are rational beings who can align with cosmic reason.

7. Indigenous Animisms

   • The world is filled with spirits and powers that have nothing to do with humans.

   • Humans are just one part of a larger network.

   • But often rituals serve human survival (food, fertility), giving a practical anthropocentric flavor.

8. Classical Daoism (Laozi, Zhuangzi)

   • The Dao is utterly indifferent to humans.

   • Humans are just one ripple among “the ten thousand things.”

   • Best life is to stop being human-centered and flow with the Dao.

9. Advaita Vedānta (Shankara’s Nondualism)

   • Brahman alone is real.

   • Humans, gods, animals, worlds — all maya (illusion).

   • Liberation is not about human destiny but about realizing there never was a separate human self.

Least Anthropocentric

10. Nature Mysticism / Deep Ecology (modern spiritual movements)

• Humans are one node in a vast, impersonal web of being.

• Spirituality is about dissolving human-centeredness into ecological consciousness.

• Comparable in spirit to Daoism or Advaita, though much newer.

---

🏆 Verdict

• Most anthropocentric: Abrahamic religions (humans at center of cosmic plan).

• Least anthropocentric: Advaita Vedānta and Daoism (humans are just one appearance of the ultimate reality or the Dao, neither of which depends on us at all).

---

Would you like me to also make a visual spectrum/scale diagram showing these traditions spread from “Human-Centered” → “Cosmos-Centered” → “Impersonal Absolute”?

Is Theosophy or Anthroposophy the most anthropocentric?

Excellent question — because both Theosophy (Blavatsky, Besant) and Anthroposophy (Steiner) are cosmic in scope but still very human-centered. Let’s break it down:

---

Theosophy

• Cosmology: Vast cycles of evolution, with hierarchies of beings (devas, masters, etc.).

• Anthropocentrism: Humanity is the pivot point of evolution on Earth, but not the only concern. Other planets, other beings, and occult hierarchies also matter.

• Goal: The human soul evolves toward divine consciousness, but so do other beings.

• Conclusion: Anthropocentric, but at least humanity is seen as one stage among many in a grand cosmic ladder.

---

Anthroposophy

• Cosmology: Steiner makes Earth and human evolution the central stage of the entire cosmos.

• Angels, archangels, and archai exist primarily in relation to human destiny.

• Christ event = central moment of all cosmic history — and it happens here, on Earth, for humans.

• Goal: Human beings are the meaning of creation. The cosmos itself evolves so that humans can become fully spiritual.

• Conclusion: Extremely anthropocentric — perhaps even more than Christianity in its traditional form, because Steiner explicitly says the cosmos exists for human evolution.

---

Comparison

• Theosophy: Anthropocentric, but not exclusively. Humanity is a cosmic rung among countless beings and worlds.

• Anthroposophy: Radically anthropocentric. Humanity is the main reason for the cosmos itself; everything funnels into our development.

---

✅ So, between the two, Anthroposophy is clearly the most anthropocentric.
It’s actually one of the most anthropocentric spiritual systems ever devised, because it reinterprets the entire universe in terms of human spiritual evolution.

---

Would you like me to place Theosophy and Anthroposophy on the anthropocentrism ranking I made earlier, so you can see where they fit relative to other religions?

Vänta ett slag...

 

Weleda?!  

Stränga regler för journalister på prinsessan Madeleines Minlen-event

The mystery of the Solarian plasma and the Luciferic counter-initiation in the light of Anthroposophy

 

Good luck with this material, a one-hour long discussion about Anthroposophy on (perhaps) middle level. 

Yes, it´s Lucifer versus Ahriman, the Consciousness Soul, the Saturn period, the Solarian (?) and Lemurian periods, and so on. Fun fact: the guy who looks vaguely like Rudolf Steiner himself is actually *not* an Anthroposophist but rather a kind of Whitehead-Jung-occultic best blend. The female mystic Gigi Young, who looks vaguely Pre-Raphaelite, is the Anthroposophist. 

Also contains some criticism of current American spirituality, including its weird combination of the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic. As in: use technology to transcend the world! Final point: is the plasma physicist mentioned the same person as the author of "The Sirius Mystery"? No idea. 

As I said, good luck to ya. (Yes, my headline is somewhat ironic.)   

Get used to it, LOL

 

I haven´t bothered reading all of this typically eclectic Wikipedia entry, but the closing section is priceless. I mean, puleeze...

>>>In 1947, Terence Harold Robsjohn-Gibbings (1905–1976), criticizing modern art, accused it of "vicious connection" with the occult. Robsjohn-Gibbings' criticism was so "successful that, for decades, supporters of abstract art religiously avoided mentioning the esoteric connections of its pioneers." Interest in Theosophy of such abstract art leaders as Mondrian and Kandinsky was used "as a weapon" against modern art in general "by evangelical Christians and other critics."

>>>The prejudgment against connection the sources of modern art with Theosophy still exists. For example, art history scholar Yve-Alain Bois claimed that "the Theosophical nonsense with which the artist's mind was momentarily encumbered" disappeared quite rapidly from Mondrian's art, but Mondrian himself wrote: "I got everything from The Secret Doctrine." The "Inventing Abstraction, 1910–1925" exhibition at the New York Museum of Modern Art in 2012–2013 "completely ignored" the value of occultism and Theosophy. 

>>>Art critic Waldemar Januszczak wrote on 7 February 2010: "The fact is, Theosophy... is embarrassing. If there is one thing you do not want your hardcore modernist to be, it is a member of an occult cult... Theosophy takes art into Dan Brown territory. No serious student of art history wants to touch it."

>>>Januszczak claimed also that Theosophy was "fraudulent" and "ridiculous," and that "one day, someone will write a big book on the remarkable influence of Theosophy on modern art" and "its nonsensical spell" on so many modern artists. But, as Massimo Introvigne wrote, "conferences, publications, and exhibitions about Theosophy's influence on modern art continue at an increasing pace."

LOL. Get used to it, art critics! Modern art is evidently soaked in occultism. Sorry, lads, your "analyses" are worthless. It was Mme Blavatsky and Dr Steiner all the time, ha ha ha!

I suppose the contributions listed in the reference section could be interesting...if I ever get infinite time 24/7.

Theosophy and visual arts

Das Kleinod von Babylon

 

“The Occult Roots of Religious Studies”, edited by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander, is a scholarly volume published in 2021. It´s interesting, to be sure, but the title is (frankly) click bait. (The subtitle is more correct: “Influence of Non-Hegemonic Currents in Academia around 1900”.) The contributors don´t really prove that religious studies have occult roots, and frankly don´t even try. I get the impression of a comfy scholarly conference where everyone made a presentation on their favorite obscure topic, had a quick snack in the bar, and then went home to Paris, Heidelberg, or wherever these people have their domicile! What the book proves is simply that many scholars of religion had “non-hegemonic” side interests. In plain English: they actually believed in Spiritualism, occultism, and the like. But that´s hardly news today. A more edgy volume (which will have to wait another 50 years) would detail which scholars *today* have religious connections and how that influences their academic research (Tibetology cough cough). It´s also somewhat weird that the two biggest fish in the occult/religious studies interface pond are hardly even mentioned. Yes, that would be Carl Gustav Jung and Mircea Eliade. Oh, and what about Henry Corbin?

But sure, “The Occult Roots of Religious Studies” isn´t bad, if you take it in the right spirit (pun intended). The chapter on Britain shows that both the Victorian and Edwardian periods were steeped in occultism, indeed, occultism (at least in the broad sense) was near-respectable. Even after the separation of science and “superstition”, many scientists were interested in Theosophy and Spiritualism on a purely personal level. So nah, Alfred Russell Wallace wasn´t unique. Chances are *Darwin* was! One thing that surprised me was that some Theosophists were members of the SPR even *after* the latter´s conflict with Madame Blavatsky. And SPR´s social base was near-upper class! The scientist Sir William Crookes, inventor of the TV tube and discoverer of Thallium, was a President of the SPR, a former President of the Royal Society and…a member of the Theosophical Society. He is even mentioned in the Mahatma Letters! It was also interesting to note that US philosopher William James was more into Spiritualism than I had expected, and that he was the son of a Swedenborgian minister…

One interesting chapter deals with John Woodroffe alias Arthur Avalon. Or perhaps not, since “Arthur Avalon” was really a collective pseudonym, encompassing both Woodroffe and a number of Bengali intellectuals. I never read Avalon´s works (an unfortunate lacuna, I know), but we´re apparently talking about a very late “reform” Tantra, paradoxically proposed to save India and Hinduism from modernity, while simultaneously claiming to be “scientific”. And speaking of India: one contribution deals with W Y Evans-Wentz, the man behind “The Tibetan Book of the Dead” and a lifelong Theosophist, who never left his occult ideas very far behind. He even saw evidence of reincarnation and other Theosophical doctrines in Celtic fairy lore!

The most intriguing section isn´t even about a scholar of religious studies sensu stricto: the famous German archeologist Walter Andrae. It turns out that his Babylonian exhibition at the Pergamonmuseum in Berlin (the one featuring the Ishtar Gate) is inspired by Anthroposophy! Apparently, Andrae both arranged and interpreted the exhibition according to doctrines he picked up from the Christian Community, the Anthroposophical “Church” founded by Friedrich Rittelmeyer under the inspiration of Rudolf Steiner. Apparently, it´s supposed to resemble an initiatory path. This also explains a weird anomaly in the exhibition: its two sphinxes aren´t Babylonian but Hittite. Yet, Andrae assumed that there simply must have been sphinxes present based on some hard-to-understand Anthroposophical doctrine. Indeed, Andrae believed that the Babylonians were carrying out a ritual created by a certain Zaratos, an earlier incarnation of Zarathustra, and the spiritual teacher of Nebuchadnezzar II. There are also speculations that the exhibition halls were painted according to Anthroposophical principles, Steiner having a complex theory of color supposedly derived from Goethe. While this is all very interesting, what conclusions are we supposed to draw from it? For instance, why did Andrae get away with it? Was it *only* because of his elevated position at an important institution, or did his take on ancient Babylon speak to some more widespread Zeitgeist?

The introduction to the volume does make some points worth pondering. For instance, it asks whether esotericism or occultism is really “non-hegemonic” to begin with? If a worldview is widely shared and discussed in elite society, isn´t it really hegemonic? Further, the introduction points out that the nouns “occultism” and “esotericism” are modern inventions and become common during the late 19^th century. Why? What made it necessary to distinguish occultism/esotericism from everything else during that period? Many of the ideas co-existing under those headers are, after all, much older. Protestant theologians apparently started denouncing esoteric ideas much earlier than Catholics. It struck me that this may explain why many esoteric groups are drawn to Catholicism and even end up creating a kind of pseudo-Catholicism themselves. Conversely, there doesn´t seem to be any esoteric groups obviously drawn to Protestantism, albeit more Protestants than we imagine may have been influenced by “heretical” esoteric ideas.   

With that observation, I close this little discussion.    

WE CONTROL EVERYTHING

- Welcome, seeker,
let me teach you comparative religion!

 

Two quotes from the introduction to "The Occult Roots of Religious Studies" (2021), edited by Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander. The entire book seems to be available free at Academia.edu, so I might read all of it when I get the time. Another contribution to the genre "everyone was really an occultist", apparently. Bingo! 

>>>For example, the anthroposophical milieu has not been researched sufficiently. One could think of the anthroposophist Uno Donner, a Finnish industrialist, who donated a chair for religious and cultural history to the University of Turku/Åbo and and also donated/held one of the largest book collections on religion in Northern Europe. 

>>>Another would be the German Diether Lauenstein, priest of the Christian Community, who learned Sanskrit from the Marburg indologist Johannes Nobel, habilitated (presumably) in 1944 at the University of Greifswald, where he subsequently received a teaching assignment for Indo-European Studies and Sanskrit. He was involved in the founding of the Herdecke community hospital (a nucleus of the University of Witten-Herdecke) and died as a supporter of apartheid in South West Africa (modern-day Namibia). We thank Robin Schmidt for the clues.

(...)

>>>However, this problem is not specific to representatives of the cultural sciences; rather, these blurred boundaries can also and especially be found in the “hard” natural sciences, where an even clearer distinction between science and pseudo-science, or religious studies, is often assumed. 

>>>Such examples include Marie Curie, who not only stood in the laboratory, but also attended spiritual seances, or Albert Einstein, who was not only a theorist in the field of physics, but also read Blavatsky and attended lectures by Rudolf Steiner. 

>>>Georg Cantor, the inventor of set theory in mathematics, who was interested in both Catholic theories of infinity and the existence of the “true” Rosicrucians, may be added to this group, along with the mathematician Jan Arnoldus Schouten, the explorer of differential geometry, who was also interested in Theosophy, or Thomas Alva Edison, who not only invented the light bulb and the two-way telegraph, but was also a temporary member of Theosophical Society Adyar (partly for economic reasons, e.g. to better sell his products in India?). 

>>>The separation between the humanities and the natural sciences, which was established in university practice – though always criticised in theory of science – never disappeared on an individual level.

Alone with the alone

 

Found this on a X account called Esoteric Philosophy Memes of East and West, but it´s apparently not his original content. Not sure who made it, but it´s damn funny!

Pongoid man is alive today

 

Credit: Darren Naish 

I never bothered with the Minnesota Iceman before, but I admit that super-nerd Darren Naish´s blog posts on the creature are interesting. 

The Iceman was a hoax promoted in the United States as a real Neanderthal corpse found somewhere in Siberia. Or so skeptics believe. Prominent cryptozoologists Ivan T Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans believed otherwise. The story broke already in 1969 and has been a kind of cryptozoology cause célèbre ever since. 

Heuvelmans suspected that the Iceman was a "pongoid man" found in Vietnam and smuggled out of that country in the middle of the Vietnam War. He apparently connected this to the heterodox evolutionary speculation known as "initial bipedalism", which argues that apes are descended from humans, rather than the other way around. (This notion is still extant, or should I say tojour vivant, among Theosophists and Anthroposophists.) 

Naish´s articles are written from a skeptical perspective - probably the right take. 

The strange case of the Minnesota Iceman (part 1)

The stange case of the Minnesota Iceman (part 2)

More here:

Scientific Anthroposophy

The devolution of man

The mystery of Christ

Previously posted on September 6, 2018 under a different title. 

"Christianity as Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of Antiquity" is a book by Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Anthroposophy, a spiritual movement which claims to represent esoteric Christianity. In his book, Steiner attempts to explain the relationship between the ancient mystery religions and Christianity. While he makes interesting points, the work is tedious, boring and difficult to read - although not as difficult as many other writings by this author!

Most esoteric groups claim that the Gospels are clever allegories with a message identical to that of earlier mystery cults. Steiner, by contrast, believed that the events depicted in the Gospels were in *some* sense literally true. His belief in spiritual evolution led him to concede that Christianity was, on a number of important points, different from the ancient mysteries. Thus, Steiner adopts a position similar to some modern Christian theologians (and C.S. Lewis). The mysteries were a preparation for the ministry of Jesus Christ, a kind of pagan version of the Old Testament. In this manner, both similarities and differences between the mysteries and Christianity can be accounted for. Christianity, while expressing the same basic truths as the mystery religions, was nevertheless at a higher stage of spiritual-cosmic evolution. Christianity is a "mystical fact", not simply allegory.

In the mystery cults, the initiate becomes "a son of God" by establishing contact with the Spirit in his individual soul. The mysteries were exclusive, in the sense that only a few individuals reached their highest pinnacles. In Christianity, the Son of God or Logos who lies suspended cross-wise in the universe is literally born as a man in order to manifest the Logos to all of humanity, not just a select few. Jesus thus becomes the unique Son of God. Steiner believes there are parallels between the lives of Jesus and the Buddha, but only up to Buddha's death, which Steiner compares with the Transfiguration of Jesus. Buddha disappears in a ray of light, making his transfiguration and physical death identical. Jesus, by contrast, stays behind and enters a new phase of his ministry, which is quite unlike that of Buddha: the crucifixion, death and resurrection.

Since everyone can't experience the passion or "initiation" of Jesus, a church organization with a formal creed becomes necessary. Those who can't directly experience the mysteries, will at least be saved by faith. Thus, in this text Steiner takes a surprisingly irenic view of the Church. He also depicts the various factional struggles within the Church as an attempt to grasp the relation between the historical Jesus and the eternal Spirit of the Mysteries. My problem with this is that Steiner seems to be suggesting something else in other, more "esoteric" texts, where salvation is pictured as a protracted process over several different incarnations (Steiner believed in reincarnation), until some humans eventually become like gods during the Vulcan stage of Earth evolution. He is also less friendly towards the main-line Christian denominations in other texts. Perhaps Steiner's thinking itself "evolved", since "Christianity as a Mystical Fact" is an early text. However, since the death and resurrection of Jesus plays a central role in the cosmic evolutionary process envisioned by the author, Steiner in some strange sense nevertheless remained closer to traditional Christianity than many other new religious movements. (For more details, see my review of Sergei Prokofieff's "Mystery of the Resurrection in the Light of Anthroposophy".)

Apart from Steiner's views on Christianity, "Christianity as a Mystical Fact" also contains expositions on Plato and Heraclitus, arguing that both were initiates into the ancient mysteries.

This book exists in a plethora of different editions. This review is based on the 1961 English translation, published by Rudolf Steiner Publications and available free on-line at the Rudolf Steiner Archive. It contains an interesting introduction by Alfred Heidenreich, who reminisces about Steiner and reveals that this spiritual leader had one very human weakness: snuff tobacco! The edition depicted on this product page could be another one...

A mystery unsolved

 

Previously posted under a different title on September 10, 2018.

"Mystery of the Resurrection in the Light of Anthroposophy" is a book on Christology by Sergei O. Prokofieff, one of the leaders of the Anthroposophical Society, a religious-spiritual group founded about a century ago by Austrian occultist Rudolf Steiner. Prokofieff is a prolific writer on Anthroposophical subjects, perhaps most known for his sharp criticism of Valentin Tomberg, author of "Meditations on the Tarot" and a defector from Anthroposophy.

I didn't like Prokofieff's sectarian attacks on Tomberg, so it was with a certain dose of scepticism that I bought "Mystery of the Resurrection". I admit that I didn't get very far with it. It's an extremely difficult book, bordering on the incomprehensible. Still, I was weirdly fascinated. Perhaps I simply need to read more books on practical occultism or very advanced Christian theology?

Although many of Steiner's ideas about Jesus were strange (to put it mildly!), he is closer to traditional Christianity than most other groups in the New Age-occult underground I'm familiar with. He doesn't view Jesus simply as a great spiritual teacher, but believes that "the Christ being" really was a supernatural being who incarnated on Earth in order to save humanity, not simply to "show us the path to Christhood". The crucifixion, descent into the bowels of the Earth and subsequent resurrection really were salvific acts, and a kind of supernatural gift to fallen humanity from more elevated spheres of existence. The resurrection wasn't purely spiritual, but was, in some sense at least, "physical". Steiner even says at one point that the Resurrection body was created "out of nothing", although it's somewhat unclear what he means by this, since Anthroposophists don't believe in a personal god that creates ex nihilo. However, it seems that the Resurrection body really was a novelty in cosmic evolution, introduced by the Christ being through a purely voluntary act of grace.

One obvious *difference* between Steiner and traditional Christianity is his adoptionist Christology. To Steiner, Christ was a spirit-being who incarnated in the human Jesus after the baptism at Jordan. At the cross, Christ left Jesus who then promptly died. However, it's not clear to me whether the distinction between "Jesus" and "Christ" really means anything after the baptism, since Steiner says that the ego of the human Jesus had to leave him in order to make room for the Christ being. (In a fit of weirdness, Steiner claims that the ego of Jesus was the reincarnated ego of Zarathustra!) Steiner also seems to be suggesting that the human body of Jesus was a kind of sheath for the Christ, which presumably means that the person "Jesus" really ceased to exist when Christ took over his body. It's also interesting to note that Christ isn't an impersonal cosmic principle, but a personal being. To be exact, Christ is a sun-spirit. Since the spiritual sun is the "god" of our solar system, the Christ of Anthroposophy is, in some strange sense, "the Son of God", too!

The work of the Christ is part of the incredibly complex and almost conceited cosmology of Anthroposophy, with its countless spiritual hierarchies, different evolutionary trajectories and even reincarnated planets. There are also several types of physical or quasi-physical bodies. A Christian theologian would probably get grey hairs trying to grasp whether or not the resurrection really was "bodily"! To make a long story somewhat shorter, Anthroposophists believe that human personality and individuality are positive traits. Prokofieff criticizes the impersonalism of Buddhism and Hinduism. However, the personal autonomy of humans also necessitated a temporary severing from the spiritual worlds. This made humans more and more estranged from Spirit. They were also preyed upon by a wide variety of evil spirit-beings: Lucifer, Ahriman, the Asuras and Sorath. If this process had continued unhindered, humanity would presumably have destroyed itself at some point. This is why Christ incarnated on our unfortunate planet and voluntarily sacrificed himself. Prokofieff has an incredibly detailed discussion on how Christ built his different body-sheaths by descending through a whole number of heavenly spheres, how these energies gradually took over the earthly body of Jesus, etc.

Perhaps inevitably, Steiner believed in "infusion" rather than "imputation", to use the Christian terms (not used by him or Prokofieff). The death and resurrection of Christ had real ontological significance. They really cleansed the Earth and our human souls from negative karmic/cosmic influences, opening up a path to salvation. Also, our souls were somehow infused by the spiritual energies emanating from the crucifixion. The passion and resurrection of Jesus weren't purely soteriological acts accessible by faith only.

But what about the bodily or physical resurrection? The physical sheath left behind by the Christ on the cross decomposed as any corpse, but since it was imbued with spiritual energies, it became "a homeopathic medicine" for the Earth. Or the soil? The blood shed on the cross was "etherized" and seems to have entered into both the energy field of the Earth, and into the etheric bodies of humans, strengthening them (at least potentially). Meanwhile, the Christ Being entered the interior of our planet, where Steiner (literally?) believed that the evil forces dwelled. After somehow defeating their influence, Christ restored something Prokofieff calls "the phantom". Frankly, I never really understood what the phantom might be - some kind of archetypal physical body lost by humans during their negative evolution? It was supposedly created by angels at "Old Saturn". From "the phantom", Christ then created the Resurrection body. He also condensed his etheric body, which looked and felt like a physical body. Thus, when Thomas touched the scars of the resurrected Christ, these were not the actual scars from the crucifixion, but etheric substitutes created specially for this occasion. Prokoffief ingeniously points out that the Christ seems to be a bodily being in the Book of Revelation, but lacks the scars! Therefore, the scars can't have been a permanent feature of the Resurrection body.

Steiner was presumably aware of various occult attempts to create an imperishable body. He seems to have regarded both this and the Buddhist attempts to reach nirvana as too narrow paths. The Christ opened up a path that is at least potentially broader and easier by letting his etheric blood fuse with all humans. Human evolution could continue on its intended course, and will end at "Vulcan", a new version of Earth in a very distant future. Vulcan is the closest equivalent to the millennium in Anthroposophy, where humans will become Christ-like beings with the capacity to "create out of nothing". When the Vulcan stage ends, humans will reach even further elevations so lofty that not even Steiner could describe them. In effect, they will become like gods...

Well, I suppose *that* isn't taken from traditional Christianity, LOL.

"Mystery of the Resurrection in the Light of Anthroposophy" is a very narrow, complicated treatise. It's not intended for the general public, but rather for advanced students of Anthroposophy. I don't consider myself to be one, so the above review should be read with that in mind. I'm not sure how to rate this mysterious work, but in the end I give it the OK rating (three stars).

Steiner´s Babylon

Are there similarities between the space opera TV franchies "Babylon 5" and Anthroposophy? Or is it all LOTR fan fiction?

No idea, but it struck me that the war between the Shadows and the Vorlons could be seen as a conflict between Ahrimanic and Luciferic spirits. The Luciferic forces, which everyone assumed represents the "good spiritual guys", turn out to be just as problematic for further human evolution as the more obviously evil Ahrimanic host. Perhaps Commander Sheridan could be seen as a very angry Christ-being, expelling the lot from our galaxy, rather than "balancing" them? 

In one episode, we also get to see the last human, who looks a bit like a Vorlon, before he too leaves the galaxy for greener evolutionary pastures. Is this based on Steiner´s idea of a future "Vulcan" incarnation, during which humans become like gods and indeed reach higher and loftier elevations? 

No idea, and it probably means nothing, but there you go!

Not the impossible faith

Credit: Julian P Guffogg

 

It just occurred to me that Richard Carrier´s form of Mythicism doesn´t threaten Christianity. Not really. Carrier claims that the early Christians believed Jesus to be a powerful angel crucified, buried and resurrected in the lower astral. As an atheist, he of course considers these beliefs to be nuts.

But what if somebody assumes they are true?

I think it would be perfectly possible to create a new form of Christianity based on these beliefs, indeed, it might not even be that different from traditional Christianity (specifically the sacramental Churches). Of course, the Gospel stories would have to be reinterpreted as teaching stories, but they are already used that way, and many other religions also have teaching stories of this kind. The literal salvific event would then be the crucifixion and resurrection of an angelomorphic Christ in the lower astral.

Traditional theologians insist that Christ must have suffered here on Earth in a physical body as an atonement for sin, by why really? The physical body will be discarded at the general resurrection anyway! Those dead before the Second Advent (most people) no longer have physical bodies, these having rotted away long ago. They will be given new heavenly bodies immediately as they rise. Those alive at the second coming will be “transformed in the blink of an eye”, their physical bodies being turned into heavenly bodies by a miraculous process – which presumably happened to Gospel Jesus in the tomb, as well. What need is there to suffer a crucifixion in a physical body? Because Adam sinned in one? But Adam´s sin was in the soul, not the body. The body is just a receptacle. Once again: there doesn´t have to be a continuity between the earthly body and the heavenly body, the first can simply be destroyed and that´s that (which is what happens to most people anyway). So Jesus might as well have suffered in an astral body. Indeed, isn´t the astral body closer in conception to both a soul and a heavenly resurrection body?

Evil may come from the lower astral (the kingdom of Satan, who according to ancient mythology rules the atmosphere), so it´s “logical” that Jesus has to purify it through a magical ritual/sin sacrifice. We could also speculate that the Earth has an astral body of sorts that needs healing/cleansing, and that Jesus accomplished this, too. That would explain how his death and rebirth could affect all of Nature (including animals and plants), redeeming them too, somehow making them immortal in a future Edenic existence. It would also explain how he could somehow be resurrected into his own Church, why the sacraments work, and so on. Yes, these notions are freely based on Anthroposophy, but they could easily be combined with all the usual Catholic beliefs on other issues. So what´s the problem, really?

Indeed, if Carrier is right, the above is (more or less) what the early Christians actually believed, so you just go back to this primitive theology. It turns out that Minimal Mythicist Christianity isn´t the impossible faith, after all! 😉

The devolution of man

 

Some racist shit 
(Credit: Neanderthal Museum)

An interesting piece on the fringey “initial bipedalism” hypothesis, which claims that all vertebrates are descended from a kind of aquatic proto-human, which later “dehumanized” into all the Vertebrata known today…except in the human lineage, of course!

While this sounds very, very bizarre, I´m actually familiar with similar speculations about apes being descended from humans, rather than the other way around. See my review of Friedrich Kipp´s “Childhood and Human Evolution” on this blog (the second link below). 

Kipp is probably an Anthroposophist, and Anthroposophy´s founder Rudolf Steiner seems to have had a view of evolution similar to that of the initial bipedalists, in which humans form the “stem” of a teleological evolutionary process, with all other groups being side-branches. Hence, all living creatures are – in some sense – devolved from a human archetype.

Steiner also proposed, if memory serves me right, that the proto-humans were aquatic. Kipp only discusses the great apes in his book, however, perhaps because he wants to sound as scientific as possible. I didn´t know that a “scientific” version of Steiner´s full speculations even existed, nor was I familiar with the connection to cryptozoology. It seems Heuvelmans was far more “out there” than I expected!

Very interesting stuff to read on a lonely Good Friday morning…

Aquatic proto-people and the "theory" of initial bipedalism

Scientific Anthroposophy? 

The perils of clairvoyance

John Michael Greer´s take on Rudolf Steiner. 

The Perils of the Pioneer

The riddle of the world

Previously posted on this blog on July 26, 2018 under a different title. This is what I want to believe in, when I´m not entirely awake or something!

"Lectures on Divine Humanity" by Vladimir Solovyov is a somewhat difficult book, in which the Russian philosopher-mystic expounds his particular version of Christian panentheism. I nevertheless felt right at home. But then, I've been immersing myself (somewhat haphazardly) in panentheist literature for some time. Solovyov draws from a wide variety of sources when spinning his own philosophy: I recognized obvious affinities with Plotinus, Leibniz, Hegel, Schelling, Fichte and Schopenhauer. However, his main font of inspiration must have been more mystical sources. The kabbalists are the usual suspects. Indeed, some of the other names on the panentheist laundry list were probably also inspired by such sources. Finally, I recognized affinities between Solovyov and later writers, including Steiner, Barfield, Grant-Watson and even the process philosophers.

It seems Solovyov is the best blend! He is also believed to be the prototype of Alyosha Karamazov. Both Dostoevsky and Tolstoy were present when Solovyov delivered his lectures on divine humanity. Dostoevsky obviously paid attention - at least to Solovyov's personality (he seems to have been quite a character), while Tolstoy rejected him as absurd and childish.

Solovyov's philosophy is difficult to summarize, so what follows are just a few short sketches.

The most fundamental metaphysical objects, simply called "entities", have three aspects: the atom, the living force or monad, and the idea. The most basic mode of knowledge is a form of subconscious, intellectual intuition which predates both rational thinking and empirical observations. This reminds me of the panpsychism of Whitehead, with its "creative occasions" and "prehension" or "radical empiricism". However, Solovyov's version seems to be a form of idealism, since neither the "atom", the monad nor the idea seem to be really material. At one point, he even says that the existence of the outside world can't really be known for sure, except through faith, a position presumably taken from Fichte. I'm not sure if Solovyov really believed this, since his metaphysics sound very "objective" and centered on God rather than individual consciousness. But then, perhaps Solovyov didn't see any necessary contradiction between an objective and a subjective perspective? In his system, God and the world are con-substantial, and the Trinity is somehow reflected everywhere in creation. The Trinity is the solution to the problem of unity-multiplicity.

There doesn't seem to be any point at which creation "began". Rather I got the impression that Solovyov believed in a constant creation in the Neo-Platonist fashion. Thus, there is permanent unity-multiplicity, rather than creatio ex nihilo. Solovyov explicitly argues for a compatibilist view of divine freedom. Creation and love are necessary for God.

The cosmic fall is the fall of the world-soul or Sophia away from its true source in God. The world-soul is also a unity-multiplicity: both a single organism and a collection of many different entities. (This is presumably similar to the Primal Man, Purusha or Adam Kadmon.) By falling away from God, the world-soul looses its unity and fractures into complete chaos. However, the love of God works to lure the world-soul back to its original state. Our universe is the result of divine love working on the fractured, chaotic multiplicity of fallen Sophia. It's slowly evolving back to God. (Note both the similarity and difference with process philosophy, really a truncated version of this more supra-cosmic vision.) Many of the beings regarded as "spirits" or "gods" are former aspects of our own selves, which have been separated from us as a result of the fall. They are said to be in charge of the evolutionary process. Presumably, they used to be our higher selves. A similar position can be found in Anthroposophy and Theosophy.

In contrast to Schelling, Solovyov doesn't seem to locate the origin of evil in God himself. Rather, evil is the result of the world-soul's free will to fall away from God. Evil results from the fragmentation and finitude of each living creature, which strives to expand itself and survive in hostile competition with other creatures. In the fallen world, evil is inevitable. Everyone is born with radical evil in his heart, and the problem is therefore metaphysical.

At several points in his lectures, Solovyov discusses the evolution of religion. He sees several different stages in this process, which have a dialectical relation to each other in a scheme of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Original paganism is negated by Buddhism. Greek philosophy and the Judaism of the Law are both negated by the Judaism of the Prophets, with Christianity as a grand synthesis of everything that went before. There are also different stages in original pagan religion: star worship, sun worship, etc. Solovyov's attempts to squeeze the history of religions into a Hegelian (?) scheme aren't very convincing, but his main point seems to be that Christianity is a natural, evolutionary zenith of previous religious traditions, rather than a completely unique revelation de novo. He even attempts to trace the Trinity to pre-Christian notions, Philo in particular. Clearly, Solovyov wouldn't feel threatened by parallels between Christ and the deities of mystery religions. One is reminded of C.S. Lewis in this respect.

Indeed, it's not entirely clear whether the actual person Jesus Christ is a product of internal cosmic evolution or a divine personage coming "from the outside" to the fallen world. Perhaps he's both, or perhaps it really doesn't matter. The universe is, after all, "in" God even in its fallen state. The entities simply doesn't realize it, having posited themselves as completely autonomous. Also, Christ is not simply a person (human or divine), but a kind of collective organism or Primal Man presumably similar in character to the original world-soul before its fall. Solovyov says that the incarnation was natural, in the sense that the world was ready for the incarnation of Christ due to its upward evolution. The end-goal of the process is less clear, but the author does suggest that the Church, or rather the Universal Church (perhaps a mystical category) is a divine organism which wants to freely convert and hence unite with all men on Earth.

Solovyov's view of history is also, I take it, Hegelian. He doesn't reject modernity and secularism out of hand. Rather, he sees the modern West as a necessary antithesis to the institutionalized Christianity of the Middle Ages and Russia, which is no longer based on love. The synthesis will be a voluntary Christian union and society, and Solovyov hopes that his own motherland will lift itself up and bring in this happy state of affairs. (He later lost faith in intra-historical salvation, as seen in his famous "Short Story of the Anti-Christ".) While I consider Solovyov's political ideas the weakest spot in his entire philosophical edifice, he did have two sympathetic traits: he seems to have rejected the most virulent forms of Russian and pan-Slavist nationalism, and he doesn't sound anti-Semitic. Indeed, at one point he writes that the Jewish prophets' combination of positive patriotism and universalism should be a model for Russia!

For more on Vladimir Solovyov, see Frederick Copleston's "History of Philosophy. Volume 10: Russian Philosophy" and N.O. Lossky's "History of Russian Philosophy", which also mentions Solovyov's mystical side and somewhat peculiar personal habits.

Meanwhile, I will give this panentheist best blend five stars.