«The real I, which could be found in the time of atavistic clairvoyance, and even down into the early Christian era, is not to be found today by looking into man's own being – insofar as this being is united with the body. Only indirectly does the human being experience something of his I: namely, when he comes into relation with other people and his karma comes into play. When we meet another person and something connected with our karma takes place between us, then some impulse of our true I enters into us. […] I remarked recently that anyone can discover the truth about himself by reviewing his own biography – factually – and asking himself what he owes since birth to this person or that. In this way he will gradually resolve himself into influences coming from others; and he will find extraordinarily little in what he usually considers his real I (but which is really only its reflection, as has been said).» Rudolf Steiner, December, 27, 1918, Dornach
Connecting the heights to the depths
Once upon a time, the pupils in the mystery centers were awakened into the spiritual world through the authority of the hierophant. This process took place far from the spotlight of the outside world. Today, in the consciousness-soul age, these mystery centers no longer exist; the task of awakening to ourselves and to the spiritual world has moved out into the open, and now takes place between individuals. In his lectures to the younger generation, Steiner said that «the individual must become more to his fellow human beings than he used to be: he must become his awakener. People must come closer to one another than they used to, each becoming an awakener of everyone he meets.» (Steiner, 1974, p. 155)
And in a lecture from December 27th, 1918 in Dornach, Steiner emphasizes:
«[W]hat in us we call our I, what we designate by that word, is only a reflection. And through the very fact of experiencing this I merely as a reflection in this fifth post-Atlantean epoch, we are being made ready to experience the I in a new form in the sixth epoch. […] People in the future will seldom have those mystical inclinations that are still experienced by some individuals today, to commune with themselves in order to find their true I – which they even call the Divine I. They will have to accustom themselves to seeing their I only in the outer world. The strange situation will come about that every person we meet who has some connection with us will have more to do with our I than anything enclosed in our own skin will have to do with it. We are heading toward a future age in which a person will say to himself: My self is out there in all those whom I meet; it is least of all within me. While I live as a physical human being between birth and death, I receive my self from all sorts of things, but not from what is enclosed in my skin.»
Based on these observations by Steiner, the following seeks to highlight the importance of the psychological-relational experience for the future development and evolution of Anthroposophy. Steiner brought so much of what we could call the ‹mysteries of the heights›. These mysteries are all the spiritual knowledge, concepts, and ideas that have come to us through Anthroposophy. Yet the ‹mysteries of the heights› cannot be separated from the ‹mysteries of the depths›. These depths are all those unconscious, and sometimes less unconscious, psychological complexes, blind spots, addictions, defense mechanisms, and emotional experiences that have not gone through a process of transformation. The heights are connected to the depths just as day is connected to night and summer is to winter. Steiner articulated the highest mysteries of the heights; in a way, he left us to work out the mysteries of the depths on our own – the depths being our own inner wounds and imperfections that can only be healed in the context of human relationality. As mentioned in the agricultural meetings in 1924, «It requires courage and truthfulness to pierce the depths of one’s own soul-world. There one encounters the Apocalyptic Beast. The abyss of one’s own soul-darkness is revealed to one – and human beings are afraid of it. ‹It is fear,› Rudolf Steiner once proclaimed, ‹which prevents man from penetrating into his own soul depths.›» (von Keyserlingk, p . 83) Perhaps this simply wasn’t as possible in those times as it can be today.
How can we create a bridge between these depths and the wisdom of the heights? The transpersonal psychotherapist John Welwood (2000) has discussed this question by examining the relation between the psychological and the spiritual which we could equate to the depths and heights respectively. Welwood wonders if the psychological and spiritual work must remain antagonistic to one another or if it is possible for them to become ‹allies›. In this regard, he notes that:
«Psychological inquiry addressed relative truth, personal meaning – the human realm, which is characterized by interpersonal relations and the issues arising out of them. At its best, it also reveals and helps deconstruct the conditioned structures, forms, and identifications in which our consciousness becomes trapped. Spiritual practice, especially of the mystical bent, looks beyond our conditioned structures, identifications, and ordinary human concerns towards the transhuman – the direct realization of the ultimate. It sees what is timeless, unconditioned, and absolutely true, beyond all form…» (p. 198)
In relation to his own experiences of the psychological and the spiritual, Welwood writes:
«I was surprised at the power of psychological inquiry to help me uncover blind spots, address leftover issues from the past, move through old fears, and open up in a more grounded personal way, both with myself and with others. This work also helped me approach spiritual practice in a clearer way, not so encumbered by unconscious psychological motivations and agendas.» (p. 200)
In this sense, all one’s spiritual activity – one’s efforts with meditation, concentration exercises, study and so forth – is closely bound up with our own soul struggles and capacities to relate to others. For example, the thinking exercise from the six basic exercises may be very difficult for a certain individual to carry out. Perhaps (but not always) this has to do in part with the individual’s inability to stay focused, and perhaps this relates to his need to always be on guard and vigilant; and perhaps these difficulties relate to experiences in childhood when survival was paramount in a neglectful or unloving family environment.
Or, to take another example: Perhaps there are subjects, ideas, or concepts in Anthroposophy that a certain individual has strong opinions about. This individual may show considerable inflexibility in his capacity to entertain other opinions or to modify his own opinion. Such an attitude may also have to do with one’s upbringing, or traumas, or the political environment one has grown up in. Keeping these two fields separate – the psychological and the anthroposophical – means that we often engage in spiritual work disconnected from the ‹mysteries of the depths›; this leaves one less free in one’s meeting with Anthroposophy.
Such unconscious depths not only disturb the harmony of interpersonal experiences, but also one’s capacity to move beyond one’s lower self and expand into something greater that approaches one’s Higher I. These parts in the depths remain like a shadow beneath the surface, playing themselves out also in group dynamics, unspoken and untransformed. In interpersonal settings, even in a study group, this often means that we can only get so far with our study before something must give; someone leaves the group without prior warning, or the study loses its direction, or perhaps there is an unspoken avoidance of approaching certain themes.
We are all on a continuum with regard to personality tendencies that can affect our spiritual practice. Welwood (2000) gives examples of this in relation to more disturbed personality traits:
«For example, people who hide behind a schizoid defense (resorting to isolation and withdrawal because the interpersonal realm feels threatening) often use teachings about detachment and renunciation to rationalize their aloofness, impersonality, and disengagement when what they really need is to become more fully embodied, more engaged with themselves, with others, and with life. […]
People with a dependent personality structure, who try to please others in order to gain approval and security, often perform unstinting service for the teacher or community in order to feel worthwhile and needed. They confuse a codependent version of self-negation with true selflessness.
Spiritual involvement is particularly tricky for people who hide behind a narcissistic defense, because they use spirituality to make themselves feel special and important, while supposedly working on liberation from self.» (p. 209)
A painful, yet important, example of the disconnect between the heights and the depths was illustrated after Steiner’s death when some of the great spiritually active individualities closely connected to Steiner were so tragically unable to collaborate, leading to conflicts and almost irreversible damage in the Anthroposophical Society.
In the times ahead, the capacity to work together fruitfully and harmoniously will depend increasingly on the capacity to create a dialogue and bridge between one’s spiritual work and one’s own psychological challenges. Thus, we could say that in the consciousness-soul age, spiritual practice is a spiritual psychology. This implies that our meditations, anthroposophical study, and spiritual practices can only be meaningful when carried out in a framework that is relational and psychological. Or in other words, our spiritual practices are enhanced when they contribute to knowing oneself and one’s capacity to take an interest in our fellow human beings.
In this sense, a book such as Knowledge of Higher Worlds can be understood and experienced as a foundation for fostering the capacity to relate to ourselves and others more meaningfully. An exercise such as immersing oneself in the sounds or tones of an animal or of an object is not simply an exercise in developing one’s spiritual senses for the sake of attaining imaginative consciousness; it also enhances one’s ability to listen to others and oneself in order to relate to others and oneself in a more authentic way.
As Steiner describes it, this capacity involves immersing oneself objectively, attentively, and empathically in the shortcomings of others (Steiner, 1918a).
Another example is the six basic exercises given by Rudolf Steiner. Steiner emphasizes that these exercises ensure that the efforts of meditation and concentration will have a positive result. These exercises are also relational exercises in the sense that they can enhance one’s capacity to really get to know one’s fellow human being. Through allowing myself to become immersed in the soul life of the client in a non-judgmental way, what Steiner describes regarding the effects of practicing these six exercises begins to become personal experience. For example, he describes how through practicing the positivity and openness exercises, one feels like someone who «grows out and beyond himself […] he learns to regard a part of his environment as something that belongs to him […] [O]ne comes to a tranquil understanding of things that were formerly quite closed to the soul» (Steiner 1994, pp. 17-18).
When our spiritual practices are not consciously linked with this psychological and social task, Anthroposophy runs the risk of becoming a stale and closed system of spiritual knowledge that fails to bring healing social impulses to the earth. Devoid of this psychological sphere of experience, to quote Martin Buber, we are often left with an ‹It›. This ‹It› of Anthroposophy is all the knowledge of spiritual science that we acquire in order to understand the world and ourselves. ‹It› may also include what is frequently termed ‹applied anthroposophy,› for example: Waldorf Education, Biodynamic Agriculture, and so on. This ‹It› is an object as opposed to a subject; it is a body of knowledge that we acquire but often do not experience. This ‹It› experience often prevents us from directly experiencing others and the world. We do not infrequently hide behind this ‹It› in our human encounters, in our study groups, in our meetings and conferences, claiming that through this ‹It,› we are truly encountering the world and others with spiritual objectivity.
Spiritual bypassing
One of the dangers of failing to create a bridge between the heights and the depths is that of spiritual bypassing (Welwood, 2011). This phenomenon refers to a tendency to use spiritual explanations to avoid confronting complex psychological issues.
Spiritual bypassing is:
«a widespread tendency to use spiritual ideas and practices to sidestep or avoid facing unresolved emotional issues, psychological wounds, and unfinished developmental tasks. When we are spiritually bypassing, we often use the goal of awakening or liberation to rationalize what I call ‹premature transcendence›: trying to rise above the raw and messy side of our humanness before we have fully faced and made peace with it. And then we tend to use absolute truth to disparage or dismiss relative human needs, feelings, psychological problems, relational difficulties, and developmental deficits. I see this as an ‹occupational hazard› of the spiritual path, in that spirituality does involve a vision of going beyond our current karmic situation.» (Welwood, p. 1)
Welwood (2011) elaborates:
«[I]t leads to a conceptual, one-sided kind of spirituality where one pole of life is elevated at the expense of its opposite: Absolute truth is favored over relative truth, the impersonal over the personal, emptiness over form, transcendence over embodiment, and detachment over feeling. One might, for example, try to practice nonattachment by dismissing one’s need for love, but this only drives the need underground, so that it often becomes unconsciously acted out in covert and possibly harmful ways instead.» (p. 1)
A typical example is the following:
Sarah moved from one new age movement to the next, dabbling in mysticism and all manner of spiritual things. She struggled to cope with changes in her daily routine even though she prided herself on accepting whatever came to meet her in life as a lesson to be learned. Everything was «for the best» and setbacks were «all part of the divine plan», and things that didn’t exactly go according to plan happened because her thoughts were simply not positive enough. She often raised her voice or got defensive when we discussed her difficulties and possible weaknesses that had seemed to hinder her from truly fulfilling her mission in life.
In relation to the Buddhist path of dharma, but equally applicable to all spiritual paths, Welwood (2011) notes that «Many of us – and I include myself here – originally turn to the dharma, at least in part, as a way of trying to overcome the pain of our psychological and relational wounding. Yet we are often in denial or unconscious about the nature or extent of this wounding. We only know that something isn’t right and we want to be free from suffering. […] We turn to the dharma to feel better, but then may unwittingly wind up using spiritual practice as a substitute for facing our psychological issues.» (p . 2; highlights made by the author)
He then goes on to describe how this spiritual bypassing can manifest:
«It’s not uncommon to speak beautifully about the basic goodness or innate perfection of our true nature, but then have difficulty trusting it when one’s psychological wounds are triggered. Often dharma students who have developed some kindness and compassion for others are hard on themselves for falling short of their spiritual ideals, and, as a result, their spiritual practice becomes dry and solemn. Or being of benefit to others turns into a duty, or a way of trying to feel good about themselves. Others may unconsciously use their spiritual brilliance to feed their narcissistic inflation and devalue others or treat them in manipulative ways.
[…] People with depressive tendencies who may have grown up with a lack of loving attunement in childhood and therefore have a hard time valuing themselves, may use teachings on non-self to reinforce their sense of deflation. Not only do they feel bad about themselves, but they regard their insecurity about this as a further fault – a form of me-fixation, the very antithesis of the dharma – which further fuels their shame or guilt. Thus they become caught in a painful struggle with the very self they are trying to deconstruct.» (p. 2; highlights made by the author)
Working within anthroposophical institutions and working communities, to what degree do we recognize the need to meet each other as a spiritual practice? To what degree do we profess this practice yet in reality bypass each other? This can indeed be a very tricky and challenging dynamic. What may seem like a true meeting can often be its opposite. Colleagues may gather in a school or residential community and profess to be meeting each other; yet this supposed ‹meeting each other› may become little more than relating together through lofty spiritual ideals. Thereby an assumed collective aspiration towards spiritual collaboration may be hindered, possibly even distorted.
Transpersonal Identity Disorder
Spiritual bypassing has also been described by the transpersonal psychologists John Firman and Ann Gila who developed Psychosynthesis, a psychospiritual psychology established by Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974). It would be worthwhile quoting them at length as their contribution to this subject is invaluable and touches on many ideas and experiences in Anthroposophy. They describe the experience of encountering the heights:
«In psychosynthesis terms, religious fanaticism begins healthily enough, with experiencing at the higher unconscious levels of the psyche. At these levels of experience, one can for example sense such things as a connection to something greater than oneself, a transcendence of duality, a profound sense of universal meaning, or a union with Divinity or Spirit.» (Firman & Gila, 2012, p. 2)
However, they then describe a disturbance called Transpersonal Identity Disorder (TID) in which one identifies with the heights to a degree that is pathological and imbalanced:
«In encountering these wonderfully enlightening experiences, however, we may begin to treasure them so highly that we are led to identify with them, to consider them as who we most truly are. Such a transpersonal identification (Firman & Gila, 2002) can in turn lead to attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors based on this strong valuation and even idealization of the higher, and these may over time develop into a coherent personality.
Such a personality is thus founded on the assumption that this higher level of experience is the most true, real, or ideal, coupled with a tendency to dismiss other, more mundane, levels of experience as inferior or illusory. This type of personality belongs to a category that we can call transpersonal identity disorder.» (Firman & Gila, 2012, p . 2)
Those parts of ourselves that bring us closer to the experience of human vulnerability and what in transpersonal psychology has been called primal wounding (Firman and Gila, 1997, 2002) are very easily denied or suppressed. In seeking to deny vulnerability and more painful elements of encounter through a one-sided devotion to the heights, we attempt to ‹forget› that, in our depths, there exist feelings and experiences that threaten to ‹contaminate› or ‹pollute› the holiness of the heights – these include emotions of self-hatred, disgust, rage, helplessness, and so forth, often caused by an environment that failed the individual. When the wounds of the depths are triggered or touched – through stress, anxiety, and so forth – there is a breakdown in the «fanatical identification» (Firman & Gila, 2012, p. 3) with the heights; the destructive forces of the depths may then threaten to emerge. Often, these destructive forces of rage are masked or rationalized as «righteous indignation, steadfast commitment to principle, and valiant leadership in a grand and dangerous endeavor.» (p. 3) This can express itself in spiritual movements as dogmatism, fixation on outdated rituals, and a need to remain insulated from ‹materialistic› tendencies in the outside world.
Firman and Gila have described the symptoms of TID that are present to differing degrees in all spiritual movements: «a ‹spiritual› tendency to minimize physical experience and personal needs; a difficulty in recognizing ‹lower› or ‹negative› feelings in oneself and others; a workaholism in the name of service to a higher good; a habit of taking the higher, ‹more spiritual› point of view as a defense; an attachment to the beliefs that support the transpersonal identification; a dedication to spiritual practice that becomes addictive; a tendency to rationalize immoral or destructive behavior as transcendence of consensual norms; an enthrallment with secret, esoteric knowledge; an intolerance of those we deem materialistic, less evolved, or
unenlightened; or a belief that we have grown completely beyond the reach of our childhood wounding.» (p. 5)
A task for the future
How can one integrate the depths with the heights in healthy and beneficial ways? One possible answer could be to decide to go through a psychological therapeutic process. In conversations with individuals practicing a spiritual path, I have heard a range of responses to this suggestion of therapy. Many such individuals wholeheartedly embrace and describe the benefits of therapy, especially when they have found an appropriate therapist who can be open to the individual’s own spiritual beliefs. I have also heard others express thoughts along the following lines: «Anthroposophy subsumes the need for psychotherapy – my therapy is my spiritual practice», or: «Psychologists don’t understand the spiritual like my spiritual teachers», or: «I am learning about myself and becoming enlightened through my spiritual practice.» To what extent are these statements examples of spiritual bypassing and to what extent are they true for any particular individual? This is a question I leave to each individual’s discretion. My concern lies in overcoming the ideological divide that often exists between psychotherapy and spiritual practice and between healthy community life and spiritual development.
As Welwood (2011) notes:
«Spiritual communities are subject to the same group dynamics that every group is. The hard truth is that spiritual practice often does not heal deep wounding in the area of love, or translate into skillful communication or interpersonal attunement […] I see relationship as the leading edge of human evolution at this time in history. Although humanity discovered enlightenment thousands of years ago, we still haven’t brought that illumination very fully into the area of interpersonal relationships. Group dynamics are especially difficult because they inevitably trigger people’s relational wounds and reactivity.» (p. 7)
The decisive question is: How do we begin this psychological work with one another outside the therapy room? It, of course, does not mean doing therapy with our fellow companions (this would be ill advised), nor does it mean demanding that one’s companions change their ways or submit to descriptions of what we think is annoying within them. It clearly does have to do with enhancing one’s capacity for self-reflection and coming to understand one’s own life path with its one-sidednesses and particular soul-challenges. This commitment is a precondition for responsible mutual dialogue. From this basis, we may then become aware of the way we affect and are affected by others and even begin to share this. This practice is only possible through engagement with one’s fellow human beings and depends on mutual help. It also requires that we create designated spaces together from time to time, spaces that consciously foster an atmosphere of openness, empathy, and trust. This may entail learning to immerse oneself openly and non-judgmentally for moments at a time in the opinions and beliefs of others, even when these opinions and beliefs are diametrically opposed to one’s own. Steiner calls this «reverent listening»:
«We have not yet taken in what the other person has said, we may not even have fully realized what is guiding him, and yet we are already ready to counter with our own opinion, with the ‹but.› Consciously, one should suppress such habits. One should practice quiet, reverent ‹listening.› Whether one believes it at first or not, only those who have practiced such ‹listening› a lot will achieve higher spiritual development.» (Steiner, 1904)
What helps me in this process is Steiner’s distinction between the individual’s beliefs or actions and his actual ‹personality,› and the importance of being able to keep these two spheres distinct:
«If we want to approach the higher worlds, we must learn to face the human personality as objectively as we face a plant or a stone. We must learn to be able to take an interest in the personality of those people who have done deeds that we may have to condemn in the most eminent sense. It is precisely this separation of the human being from his deeds, the separation of the human being from his karma, that one must be able to carry out if one is to be able to gain a right relationship to the higher worlds.» (Steiner, 1915)
Steiner elaborates on this even more thoroughly in his book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds:
«If anything be said to which we must reply, we must be careful to consider the speaker's opinion, feeling, and even his prejudice, rather than what we ourselves have to say at the moment on the subject under discussion. In this example a refined quality of tact is indicated, to the cultivation of which the student must devote his care. He must learn to judge what importance it may have for the other person if he opposes the latter's opinion with his own. This does not mean that he must withhold his opinion. There can be no question of that. But he must listen to the speaker as carefully and as attentively as he possibly can and let his reply derive its form from what he has just heard […] ‹The importance lies not in the difference of our opinions but in his discovering through his own effort what is right if I contribute something toward it.› Thoughts of this and of a similar nature cause the character and the behavior of the student to be permeated with a quality of gentleness, which is one of the chief means used in all esoteric training. Harshness scares away the soul-pictures that should open the eye of the soul; gentleness clears the obstacles away and unseals the inner organs.» (Steiner, 1994, pp. 89-90) .
Being a therapist offers me the opportunity to practice this exercise almost every day. I try to immerse myself in the client’s world, surrendering myself to the client’s thought forms without immediately seeking to disagree or react to them. Sometimes this is an extremely challenging task, especially when one hears a client say things about themselves that perhaps seem untrue, farfetched, illogical, or perhaps absurd at first. Sometimes simply living with the client’s thoughts, letting them reside in one’s own soul life in unconditional acceptance, allows something that was stuck for a very long time to become unstuck in the client’s life and in the interaction between client and therapist. This is the need of the client to simply be heard and seen in a way that had hitherto never been possible. If one can bear and tolerate the initial antipathies and sympathies that emerge in the interaction, there is the possibility to practice «the finest and most important social attribute in the future» and this is «the development of a scientific, objective understanding of the shortcomings of others, when we are more interested in their shortcomings than in our concern to criticize them. For gradually in the course of the fifth, sixth, and seventh cultural epochs the individual will have to devote himself increasingly and with loving care to the shortcomings of his neighbor.» (Steiner, 1918a). Consequently, a space can open up that allows something new and healing to enter.
When attempting to practice this social-relational exercise, one runs the risk of spiritual bypassing. For example, someone could claim that through his diligent and intense spiritual practice, he is not affected by someone else’s disagreeable opinions and beliefs. Such an individual could then come across as distant or indifferent, and as if surrounded by an aura of holiness, unaffected by the dramas of earthly life, convinced that the success of his spiritual practice lies in this capacity to not be affected by other’s opinions or beliefs. In such a case, it would be good to remind oneself that spiritual exercises are meant to be practiced for brief moments in the day and to then be ‹forgotten,› so that the effects of these exercises can work in the depths of our soul in waking life and in sleep. This requires of us to ‹return› to the reality of everyday life where we can be ‹protected› from spiritual bypassing and reminded of our flawed nature through experiencing what all human beings must experience in this life – the all too human dynamics of anger, frustration, elation, bitterness, and so forth.
Concluding thoughts
It follows from the above that not only can the spiritual and psychological fields mutually fructify one another (Welwood), but that one’s meditative life and clairvoyant capacities are intricately bound up with one’s inner moral development. Moral perception – through imagination, inspiration, and intuition – cannot be healthily developed without moral relationships. Seeing into other worlds is bound up with developing relational capacities. This means that sensing and experiencing the other and developing warmth and true interest in the other are part of the initiation path into higher worlds. Steiner more than hints at this in a lecture from 1905 where he says that «with the relationship of soul to soul we have a powerful means of developing devachanic organs.» We could replace here the word ‹devachanic› with the word ‹spiritual.›
Steiner continues:
«In no way can devachanic organs be more easily developed at present than by such relationships. Such a relationship is unconsciously a devachanic one. What a person develops in his present life in the way of soul faculty through friendship of a purely soul nature, in Devachan is wisdom, the possibility of experiencing the spiritual in action. To the extent to which someone enters livingly into such connections, he is well prepared for Devachan (…) for this purpose the human being is transferred to earthly existence.» (Steiner, 1905; highlights made by the author)
Moving into the future, it is my conviction that Spiritual Science needs to be increasingly permeated with the impulse that fosters the capacity to relate more meaningfully to one’s fellow human being on a psychological level. Through encountering one’s own depths, a process that leads to a renewed and healthy relationship to the heights is engendered – one that can help us overcome the temptation of spiritual bypassing. Practicing this could surely become the challenge of spiritual psychology in our times.
It enables a mutual fructification between one’s spiritual practice and one’s soul development (and subsequent capacity to relate authentically to the other). This psychological-relational activity embraces the appeal of Spiritual Science to «know thyself», grounding its practice as a precondition for world service.
It seems to me that this call – that is, to bring inner work into conscious connection with human relationship – is now seeking to permeate the fields of spiritual research from every side, a call that I hear most especially, but not only, amongst the younger generation. This awareness could surely also fructify the development of both the Anthroposophical Society and the Sections of the School of Spiritual Science. Might such practice thereby impart new life and new impulses to this mystery school, enhancing the practical esoteric basis for a Spiritual Science? Surely this is what the Christmas Foundation Meeting is appealing to within all of us. Are we prepared to acknowledge the need for an ever-increasing convergence of the psychological-relational with the spiritual, for actively embracing psychological preconditions for the sake of collaborative relationality? As we are moving forward into the second century of anthroposophical striving, is it not more than ever the case that fostering relationships becomes, in and of itself, central to spiritual development? Are we prepared to consider how this might be acknowledged, even consciously encouraged, as part of the esoteric practice of the School of Spiritual Science?
Literature:
Firman, J., & Gila, A. (2012). On Religious Fanaticism: A Look at Transpersonal Identity Disorder. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239920397_On_Religious_Fanaticism_A_Look_at_Transpersonal_Identity_Disorder
Steiner, R. (1904). ‹On the Representation of Personal Conviction› (54). From: Essays on Anthroposophy from the Journals ‹Lucifer› and ‹Lucifer-Gnosis› 1903-1908. GA 34. https://rsarchive.org/Articles/GA034/English/SOL2024/54_On_the_Representation_of_Personal_Conviction.html
Steiner, R. (1905). The Foundations of Esotericism, lecture 14, GA 93a. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA093a/English/RSP1982/19051009p01.html
Steiner, R. (1915). The Value of Thinking. Lecture 4. GA 164. https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA164/English/SOL2024/19150920p01.html
Steiner, R. (1918). The Birth of Christ in the Human Soul. How can Mankind find the Christ again?, GA 187, Lecture 4. GA 187.
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA187/English/AP1984/19181227p01.html
Steiner, R. (1918a). From Symptom to Reality, lecture 4, GA 185.
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA185/English/RSP1976/19181025p01.html
Steiner, R. (1974). Awakening to Community. Anthroposophic Press.
Steiner, R. (1994). How to Know Higher Worlds. Anthroposophic Press.
Steiner, R. (1994). Guidance in Esoteric Training. Rudolf Steiner Press.
Von Keyserlingk, A. (1999). The birth of a new agriculture: Koberwitz 1924 and the introduction of biodynamics. Temple Lodge Publishing.
Welwood, J. (2000). Toward a psychology of awakening: Buddhism, psychotherapy, and the path of personal and spiritual transformation. Shambhala Publications.
Welwood, J. (2011). ‹Human Nature, Buddha Nature. On Spiritual Bypassing, Relationship,
and the Dharma›. An interview with John Welwood by Tina Fossella. From www.johnwelwood.com, Articles: ‹Human Nature, Buddha Nature.›