Prominent anthroposophical writer and lecturer, Sergei O. Prokofieff, died recently (26 July 2014) at the age of 60. While heartfelt condolences go out to family and friends for their loss, Prokofieff’s passing also provides an opportunity to esoterically review and appraise his life’s work.
It would be difficult to find any anthroposophist living today who was more devoted to Rudolf Steiner than Sergei Prokofieff. In his memorial address to Prokofieff given on 29 July 2014, Peter Selg described him as “this most inwardly faithful pupil of Rudolf Steiner and protector of his new revelation of Christ.” Sadly, therein lies the tragedy of Prokofieff’s life.
It is obvious from Prokofieff’s writing and actions that he idolized Rudolf Steiner; he wanted to be just like his eminent teacher. Like Steiner, Prokofieff was a prolific writer and lecturer who spoke with great authority on profound esoteric matters. Unfortunately, Prokofieff was not the high initiate that Rudolf Steiner was: he had no developed clairvoyant perception; he could not read the akashic records; nor could he converse with the bodhisattva-masters of East and West or with the superphysical celestial beings who guide human development.
Moreover, as a high Christian initiate, Rudolf Steiner dedicated his life to serving the saviour of mankind, Christ-Jesus. If Prokofieff really wanted to follow in Steiner’s footsteps then he would have likewise dedicated his life to serving Christ-Jesus and not anthroposophy, since anthroposophy is essentially a modern esoteric means of understanding our Saviour.
Together with being a prodigious reader of Steiner’s voluminous writings and recorded lectures and possessing a powerful intellectual will, Prokofieff’s main talent was his ability to draw complex and detailed connections and interrelationships from Steiner’s ideas. Unfortunately, many of the conclusions that Prokofieff drew from his abstruse intellection were contrary to Steiner’s own teaching. For example, Steiner repeatedly emphasized that anthroposophy was not a Mystery religion or revival of ancient Gnosticism, but a “spiritual science” adapted to the modern age:
The Gnosis was strictly guarded in hidden Mysteries … Anthroposophy cannot be a revival of the Gnosis. For the latter depended on the development of the Sentient Soul; while Anthroposophy must evolve out of the Spiritual Soul, in the light of Michael’s activity, a new understanding of Christ and of the World (Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts; “Gnosis and Anthroposophy;” 1925)
Prokofieff, however, starting with his very first book, Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries (1982), throughout his life erroneously maintained that Steiner founded “New Mysteries” of esoteric Christianity, what he termed, “Michael Mysteries.” Moreover, as stated in Selg’s memorial address: “Sergei Prokofieff wrote that he had come to Dornach to aid in developing the Goetheanum [the headquarters of the General Anthroposophical Society] into a contemporary Mystery centre.”
Steiner himself was very clear in his writing that he did not come to establish new Michael Mysteries; the new Mysteries of esoteric Christianity had already been established by Christ-Jesus. Anthroposophy’s mission as a spiritual science was to understand these Christ-Mysteries. In a lecture given on 27 November 1906 entitled “Esoteric Christianity,” Rudolf Steiner stated: “The truth is, the Christian esotericism is the most profound which has ever been brought to mankind. Christian esotericism was brought to the earth by that very Being Himself with whom one must be united. It is a question of belief in the divinity of Christ.” Moreover, in a lecture given in 22 December 1923, he further stated: “[W]hoever really understands, the Mystery of Golgotha [the foremost Christian Mystery] understands all the previous [ancient] Mysteries” (published in Mystery Knowledge and Mystery Centres; 2013).
It should come as no esoteric surprise that Prokofieff made a number of fundamental errors in his early publications. What is surprising is that for some strange reason Prokofieff failed to heed Steiner’s clear esoteric advise (that was even quoted on page 6 of Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries!): “I had reached the age of 40, an age before which no one in the sense of a master may openly appear as a teacher of occultism. Everywhere where someone teaches earlier than this there is an error “(Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925).
Unfortunately, Prokofieff felt that contrary to his eminent teacher’s own restriction, he could safely step onto the world’s stage as an authoritative “teacher of occultism” at the tender age of 28! As many present-day anthroposophists will increasingly come to recognize after Prokofieff’s passing, this was a tragic mistake on his part.
Fascinating comments above. I found myself swinging from admiration to opprobrium as I read through them.
What rang most true for me is the idea that Prokofieff might be a reincarnation of Marie Steiner; a totally devoted pupil of Steiner but flawed, like all of us.
This article and comments have helped me remember that I too as an anthroposophist am a flawed pupil of Steiner. And like all issues of today everything is more nuanced than I would first wish. My job of navigating the nuance is perhaps THE task of of our time. Painful but necessary. Thanks to all of you above 😊
I am not a scholar, but I find much of the above criticism to sound petty. I will say that Prokoffief’s book on forgiveness transformed my life. As far as I am concerned, it was Christian with a message of love. I had to read it several times regarding certain conflicts I had with others. Finally I was able to surrender to the message of the book and I felt I had done the most important thing in my life.
Hello C.V.,
Thank you for your consideration of my website and for posting a reply. My brief commentary on Sergei O. Prokofieff focused specifically on his profoundly detrimental misunderstanding of Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy as a “new Mystery religion” rather than as a “new spiritual science.” My book “The Son of Love and the Birth of the New Mysteries” goes into much greater detail and examination of this issue.
This is not to say that Prokofieff didn’t have valuable and truthful things to say in other areas. For instance, I totally agreed with his thorough critique of Judith von Halle’s erroneous “anthroposophical” ideas. Regarding his book on “Forgiveness,” although I read it some decades ago, I don’t recall much about it. If, however, reading it transformed your life then I’m certainly happy for you.
As you intimate, all true spiritual understanding of forgiveness has its origin in Christ-Jesus who serves as the great “Wayshower” of divine forgiveness for humanity.
Sincerely,
Ron
If you read “Time Journeys” by Sergei Prokofiev it seems clear to me that he did not attack the person Judith von Halle.
On the contrary, he pointed out that the particular method of esoteric research she has used does not lead to *clear* perception of the higher spiritual worlds, but to manifold errors – and backs this up with many statements along the same lines by Rudolf Steiner.
He then proceeds to give examples of those errors, and where because of those errors her teaching is in direct conflict with the anthroposophy brought by Rudolf Steiner.
I believe he was supporting a healthy understanding concerning his friend and teacher Rudolf Steiner – and the work he came to bring to humanity.
Hi John,
I apologize for the delay in responding to your commentary; but life can get rather hectic on occasion (as I’m sure you well know).
In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with your statements. Although I had profoundly-fundamental differences with some of Sergei Prokofieff’s ideas and actions, I nevertheless thought that his anthroposophical analysis and assessment of Judith von Halle’s “mystical” claims to be entirely accurate and in no way personal. I also posted my own similar analysis of von Halle on this website, entitled “De-Mystifying the ‘Mystical Stigmata’ of Judith von Halle” (just type in “von Halle” in the search box, then click on the title to call up the archived posting to read).
All the best,
Ron
I’ve just discovered this website.
I feel for everything that’s been said, I think there are elements of truth in the lot. That is important because surely we go this way with Spiritual Scientific Method to find the deeper truths that unite the fragmentary jigsaw pieces into a bigger picture. We put ourselves to one side as it were, into “observer consciousness”, to notice all reactions at every level, within ourselves as well as others. Then, I find, doing this on a regular basis, one may start to receive pictures and intuitions that go further to make sense of all. It starts to look beautiful. “Schoenes Wissenschaft” is Steiner’s phrase that comes to mind.
Now something came to me in this kind of way, not long after Prokofieff passed over. I was talking to a friend who is a sensitive, saying that it had flashed through to me, that Prokofieff had lived as Marie Steiner in his immediate past life. My friend responded enthusiastically, saying, in effect “I feel him here right now. I feel he wants something like this to go out widely. It needs to be known.” Now time has passed and you know how it is, something remarkable happens and one cannot even recall exactly what transpired half an hour later. So my recall of my friend’s words is approximate, but draws on the strong and delightful feeling I do remember. That is surely why Steiner said to pay attention, and why Pasteur said regarding scientific discoveries “Chance favours the prepared mind” !
Over time, my impression has not gone away but has strengthened and been clarified and added-to. It is but normal courtesy to honour Prokofieff for what he did achieve – and it is being truthful, and raising consciousness, to clarify what his weaknesses and failings were. And into this, we need to add the possibility that we ourselves may be partly or even totally mistaken.
Now this caveat is something I think it is time to start to apply, with courtesy and respect, to Steiner himself. I have had to do this for years but it has taken a long time to find words to speak about this openly with sufficient charity and understanding. I have found instances – quite major ones – where having lived with the issues for years, I have only become more and more sure that Steiner was mistaken. Or perhaps, that Great Spirit allowed Steiner to be mistaken, because it is so essential that we keep on our toes and don’t just believe Steiner – as of course Steiner requested of people, again and again.
In this mix I want to drop Steiner’s oft-used phrase “Spiritual Science Says …”. I am starting to get the feeling that this is a hint, to our generation, to dig deeper; that behind what Steiner says, is something he simply could not say (or perhaps Great Spirit withheld it from him) because it would not have helped Anthroposophy develop, at that point. But now we need this caveat, precisely for the purpose of developing Spiritual Science with Steiner and beyond. And it is with Prokofieff that Anthroposophy has gotten most stuck, in this respect. Yet we are all to blame as well. And I am sure that this is why he wants the word to go out, so that, for the sake of Spiritual Science getting unstuck, and having a proper future, this matter can be taken on board.
Steiner said his Philosophy of Freedom would outlast all the rest. And I can agree with him, insofar as I have never had to fault PoF but on the contrary it has helped me to develop confidence in my own perceptions, inch by inch over the years, and to deepen them to the point where I now often feel I can put myself in Steiner’s shoes. I don’t have the extraordinary gifts he had; but I have something else that to me is just as important. I can splice the foundations of his work with Christ’s words, when at perhaps Christ’s most difficult moment, he says what his own work is and has been: “Witness To Truth”. I experience the same Vine, of which Christ speaks, of which he says his disciples are the Branches.
Dear Anne,
I’m happy that karmic forces have led you to my website.
Concerning personal intuitions about possible prior-incarnations of Sergei O. Prokofieff, it is extremely unlikely that one of them was Marie Steiner. Marie was a consistent supporter and helpmate to Rudolf Steiner; whereas Sergei consistently undermined the spiritual scientific mission of Rudolf Steiner by actively working to restore and renew the ancient pagan Mysteries.
My own supersensible intuitions have led me to conclude that a significant prior-incarnation of Prokofieff was the Roman Emperor Julian (331-363). In that incarnation, Prokofieff similarly laboured (unsuccessfully) to re-establish the ancient pagan Mysteries (he was initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries); which to my mind largely explains why Prokofieff was so mistakenly intent on transforming Steiner’s spiritual science into a modern-day, Mystery religion. Moreover, Emperor Julian (the Apostate) was openly hostile and critical of Christianity; which explains why Prokofieff continued to rabidly attack the Catholic Church throughout his life.
As well, the young Julian was deeply influenced by a Gothic slave-tutor and was recognized as a philosopher during his time. He later had numerous military campaigns against the Germanic tribes. These two powerful influences established a strong karmic connection with Germany and with Rudolf Steiner in his incarnation as Prokofieff.
Thank you Ron.
I like the picture of Julian the Apostate as a previous incarnation of Sergei Prokofieff. This is a new idea to me, and . . . the interesting thing is . . . it splices together perfectly with my own picture. I’ve “seen” two other even earlier incarnations; and Julian’s life, if both our intuitions are correct, reads to me as a partial karmic reparation for one of those lives, and preparatory for a deeper karmic reconciliation and faithful service as Marie Steiner.
We have to dig deep. We have many lessons to learn over many lifetimes and can be a saint in one life and a wastrel in another, as Edgar Cayce showed. My experience in karmic research teaches me that a person will remedy a major fault from the past at the most basic level, but at a subtler level the same fault is likely to be visible still.
I see Marie Steiner as having huge faults as well as huge gifts. She was extremely hardworking and faithful to Steiner – as she understood him – but her understanding was limited. She opened the door for him in the first place – but after Steiner has gone, we see her undermining and finally expelling Ita Wegman, whom Steiner had chosen and prepared to lead the esoteric classes. Marie Steiner’s difficult side had already showed itself to Elisabeth Vreede, before Steiner died: and it seems Steiner was aware of all this. What happened to Elisabeth was appalling and heartrending. What I see is jealousy and limitation of vision, on Marie Steiner’s side, calling itself faithfulness but practising ruthless discourtesy and slander.
Peter Selg describes much of this with great courtesy to all sides. I’m not saying Marie was totally at fault, nor that Ita and Elisabeth were totally without fault. The issue is nuanced, but I feel that Marie carries a lot of blame for the Anthroposophical Society getting stuck – and that Prokofieff tried his hardest to put it right, by strictly adhering to Steiner, as he understood Steiner – he too tried his utmost to be faithful – but his understanding was also limited, and without noticing, he too left the AS stuck.
I hear the story of Steiner saying to a sensitive after his passing: Oh my friends! What are you doing to each other?
Dear Anne,
I share your thoughtful understanding of Marie Steiner’s influence before and after Rudolf Steiner’s death. It’s unfortunate that personality issues between anthroposophists caused such long-term turmoil within the movement and society.
Interestingly, according to the Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus, Emperor Julian (Prokofieff) mistakenly believed that he was Alexander the Great in a previous life. As we know, it was Ita Wegman who was Alexander to Steiner’s Aristotle. She was also Gilgamesh to Steiner’s Enkidu; and therefore a much more profound soulmate to Rudolf Steiner (which would have certainly contributed to the tension with Marie Steiner during that lifetime).
Ah, the joys of karmic connections, eh?
yes, exactly! thank you!
Very interesting articles.
I would simply state the following in my most humble opinion.
‘ MANY ARE CALLED, FEW ARE CHOSEN.’
It was pointed out as mistake to take up
Teaching before the age of 40 years of age.
I simply point out Christ-Jesus young age.
Dear Leon,
A good point about the fact that Christ-Jesus inerrantly taught on esoteric matters before the age of 40. But I’m sure you would agree, that in union with the Solar-Christos, the Logos-Word and God the Son, Christ-Jesus was much more than simply a “master teacher of esoteric wisdom”; and therefore, clearly an exception to the esoteric rule. Tomberg, Prokofieff and von Halle can hardly be seen as a similar claim to exception.
I would not mention s.o.Prokofiev in one breath with Judith von Halle .She is absolutely a clear thinker unfortunately s.o. Prokofiev is not. He misinterpreted Judith von Halle and Tomberg. He even attacked the Masters of the East Kuthumi and Moria in his ” the East in the Light of the West”.
Irina Gordienko “the Anthroposophical method of research into the spiritual world comprises the indications given by Rudolf Steiner concerning the esoteric development of the pupil, and is founded wholly on the epistemological principals of his philosophy, in which the nature of human cognition as such is revealed. It consists in the percept with the corresponding concept by means of thinking, an activity of the’I’ which is given in experience. In the course of esoteric schooling the human being develops within himself New , spiritual organs of perception, whereby the range of his perceptions reaches beyond the boundaries of sense experience. From the intellectual ability to link together concepts and make logical inference, thinking rises to a direct beholding of the idea and now begins, in the steadily expanding spheres, to includes concepts which can grasp the essence of what is beheld spiritually. s the central point of the cognitive process there always remains the self-conscious ‘ I’ in which the percept whether they be so sensible or super sensible – enter into a union with the Concepts that corresponds to their essential being. ” S.O. Prokofiev unfortunately has made some major errors in judging above mentioned individuals. He tries hard to support his ownideas through Rudolf Steiner s writing and makes many mistakes on the way. He has started to early in his life and was has not met Steiner s warnings.
Greetings Birgith,
Thank you for your interest in my website, and for taking the time to post your commentary. While I certainly agree that Prokofieff’s writings are filled with esoteric errors because he chose to ignore Rudolf Steiner’s clear warning: “I had reached the age of 40, an age before which no one in the sense of a master may openly appear as a teacher of occultism. Everywhere where someone teaches earlier than this there is an error “(Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925).
The problem is that both Tomberg and von Halle also ignored Steiner’s esoteric admonition: Tomberg began esoterically teaching at age 30; and von Halle began esoterically teaching at age 33. Consequently, the writings of all three “teachers” contain numerous and glaring esoteric errors and misinformation.
Unfortunately, with all three individuals, it’s a case of “reader beware!”
What are the errors of Tomberg you mentioned, without being specific but based on mere logic.
Hi Robert,
It’s been a while. Regarding your question, my website posting on Valentin Tomberg is a brief excerpt from my book The Greater and Lesser Mysteries of Christianity: The Complementary Paths of Anthroposophy and Catholicism. There I devoted an entire chapter (15 pages) to assessing and exposing Tomberg. In Tomberg’s case, what accounts for his litany of distorted spiritual ideas is that he was a flawed individual.
Tomberg harbored an overinflated sense of himself as the equal to, and even successor to, eminent esotericist, Rudolf Steiner. This delusional sense of his own importance distorted everything he attempted to accomplish. When he failed to convince the anthroposophical leadership of his “superior stature to Steiner,” he abandoned anthroposophy and “converted” to Catholicism.
Not only did Tomberg embrace the fundamentalist Jesuitism that Steiner had condemned, but he attempted to succeed St. Ignatius of Loyola by establishing an idiosyncratic system of “hermetic” initiation within the Church that was non-Catholic and paganistically heretical.
Tomberg’s glaring errors are readily apparent, not so much through logic, but by comparison; that is, juxtaposing his ideas with those of Rudolf Steiner or that of Catholic doctrine. Since I have done this at length in The Greater and Lesser Mysteries of Christianity, I would refer you to that source for more convincing detail.
I will share a couple of examples here that illustrate the effectiveness of comparison. Rudolf Steiner has repeatedly described anthroposophy as a “spiritual science” that excludes mysticism and magic. Tomberg, however, conversely stated:
Anthroposophy thereby becomes the mysticism and magic of thinking. (From an essay entitled, “Western Occultism, Vedanta and Anthroposophy”; 1930)
Regarding Catholic doctrine, the Church recognizes only seven sacraments established by Christ-Jesus, and celebrates Holy Communion as the “source and summit” of Catholic belief. Tomberg, however, arrogantly introduced an eighth, overarching sacrament ― the sacrament of sacraments ― which he termed the “sacrament of the second birth,” or the “Great Initiation.”
As I concluded in my book chapter on Tomberg:
Any anthroposophist or any devout Catholic sincerely striving to harmoniously reconcile esoteric Christianity and exoteric Christianity will find no positive assistance from the life and written works of Valentin Tomberg.
Best regards,
Ron
Though this post is from some years ago, I would also relate that in the East great spiritual realization and abilities does not seem limited by age. The great and universally recognized teacher, Meher Baba, received his first great initiation or awakening at 19 and spent 7 years perfecting and balancing the nature of this realization coming into full command of his spiritual facilities at 25 years old. The transcendental access into the inner planes is self evident and he began his teaching and spiritual work at that age. Though RS gave many lectures on the East, e.g. the Buddha, the coming Bodhisattva, Krishna and the Adam Soul, there are still many gaps between non Theosophical Eastern spiritual figures and those focused on in the esoteric Christian stream.
Dear Jay,
I believe that what Rudolf Steiner says about waiting until after 40-years-of-age before one is mature enough to be an esoteric teacher is a spiritual prerequisite that applies to all initiates, both East and West. Meher Baba’s premature non-compliance largely explains why he entertained the delusional idea that he was “God in human form,” “the Avatar of the Age,” and the “new Messiah.” As he, himself, egomaniacally proclaimed:
As the self-proclaimed Avatar, Meyer Baba further claimed to have previously manifested as Zoroaster, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad. According to esoteric Christian knowledge, these claims are nonsense; since there is only one true Messiah, one true God-man in world history and that is Christ-Jesus.
Sincerely,
Ron
Thank you for this post. You are so right. I am writing this not because I have formed my own opinion, but because I know through inspired knowing. What is most puzzling is how large groups of people can get distracted by the great confusors such as Prokofieff, Tomberg, Van Halle. It is a mystery to me how they don’t seem to notice, or immediately feel, the striking difference between the richness and clarity in RS’s lectures, and the poor and confused/confusing thought forms offered by the side-trackers.
Dear DL,
Thank you for your comments. Regarding the predictably misleading and erroneous ideas of Tomberg, Prokofieff and von Halle, as you may be aware, all three unfortunately chose to ignore Rudolf Steiner’s clear spiritual admonition to not become an esoteric master-teacher before the age of 40; otherwise “errors” will inevitably occur. So why would these anthroposophists deliberately choose to ignore Steiner’s sage advice? Pride, in my opinion. All three fancied themselves as Steiner’s equal or superior in initiatory development. To anyone with a clear sense of the truth, this was a delusional mistake on their part.
As to the numerous anthroposophists who have been unfortunately misled by Tomberg, Prokofieff and von Halle, we must constantly keep in mind that we are living in an age of falsehood, deception, untruth and disinformation as Ahriman – the “father of lies” – continues to prepare for his approaching incarnation. Without uniting ourselves with the spirit of truth that is embodied in Christ-Jesus, we have no “eyes to see, or ears to hear.”
S. Prokofieff has been a great Slavic soul and a sincere explorer. His capabilities and his spirit are not easily to be understood by Western people though.
Everyone has to be sure that being now in the spiritual world, Prokofieff is aware if his one mistakes, one of the bigger one being the thing with Judith von Halle. The person whose articles and lectures I am translating into German now, is often talking about the help he is getting from S. Prokofieff from above.
Thank you for this article. It barely touches the surface of Prokofieff’s real problem, in my view his vicious anti-Catholicism. And concerning one of his other books, I forget which one, perhaps the one on folk-souls: a very dear friend of mine, and very steeped in anthroposophy, said that the book deeply embarrassed her and she threw it in the fireplace. “I would not want any friends just learning about anthroposophy to read that book,” she said. I found Prokofieff to be unreadable myself and I have had to ask myself whether “esotericism” is irreconcilable with Christianity. For is not this faith about incarnation and making-manifest and learning that death comes before life?
…it seems to me that the author of the article is rather brash in his Catholic (Jesuitical?) endeavors — coming from the Rocky Mountains field of influences — to form a judgement on Sergei O. Prokofieff; because S.O. Prokofieff was (and still is) a great Slavic soul, which (spiritual) content is many years of light away from an actual experience of to-day souls living in the West, especially in the United States, Canada…, “too much accommodated to the ways of the world” and his materialistic values;
…I lived and worked for several years in the Rockies, after fled from besieged Sarajevo in 1993; I also attended Sergei Prokofieff’s funeral ceremony in July 2014.;
…Sergei O. Prokofieff was — in my opinion — the biggest pupil of Rudolf Steiner; he had not been a “teacher of occultism”; he possessed such an amount of devotion for Christ-Jesus, for Michael, for Anthroposophia, and for Rudolf Steiner (which is almost natural feeling for Slavic people!) that is actually incomprehensible for most westerners, especially for those of Anglo-American descend; and out of his sublime respect for his Master he became such a spiritually developed person who left 55 books to the contemporary humankind;
…dear Ron MacFarlane, at this point I really have no time, nor energy for more writing, but I feel I am (spiritually) obliged to say you that your writing is so biassed; your sentences are both cold and logical to such a degree that they bear almost visible stamp of a Good Catholic… but, Catholicism is nothing more then a Christian sect, dear Canadian fellow, isn’t it!
…and I be so much happy, if you would join the SpiritualScienceOnline web-site, looking at the older posts and my defending Sergei Prokofieff against attacks coming from some Anglo-American anthroposophists;
…dear Ron MacFarlane, instead of citing Rudolf Steiner’s from GA 178 about Rocky Mts.-influence, how it works on the people of North America, you are attempting an “impossible mission”: trying to devaluate both his person (individuality) and his work, which is like a torch of great hope especially in the western world now submitted to the (Christian? Catholic?) ideal of (American) Three Big;
…also, please do not consider this as something personally.
Sincerely,
Sl. Žalica
P.S. …it might be good to say something more about myself: I met anthroposophy in 1970 as a student of philosophy at Sarajevo University; presently living in proximity of Rudolf Steiner’s place of birth.
Great reply Zalika, I totally agree. We need a thousand more Prokofieff and people like Meyers; dedicated students of Rudolf Steiner. perhaps Philosophy of Freedom would help the sacred heart of shambhalla weave through every heart.
Hello Ron,
You and I live in the same time zone: me down here in LA-LA Land and you up North from me in BC. Yet I just discovered your website though a blog in Germany. Michael Eggert in Duesseldorf has published the Egoisten blog for the last 10 years and here is his article about you.
http://egoistenblog.blogspot.com/2015/10/das-herz-von-shambhalla-oder-die.html
I have a question for you about your analysis of Sergei P. How is it that you failed to mention the Anthroposophical Stigmata girl, Judith von Halle, whose existence and teachings consumed Sergei P for the last 2 years of his life? Indeed there are some who claim that his obsession with Judith von Halle and her followers may have actually hastened his early death.
Greetings Tom,
Thanks for pointing out the German blog site, “Egoisten,” that has been discussing some of my website articles. Unfortunately, the Google translation of the German is rather poor, and therefore difficult for me to read and follow. In any case, I hope that I have stimulated some thoughtful discussion on the “other side of the pond.”
As to your question about Prokofieff’s critical preoccupation with alleged stigmatist Judith von Halle prior to his death, I thought I could best share my own perspective of this controversy by posting a new article, entitled “De-Mystifying the ‘Mystical Stigmata’ of Judith von Halle.”
Sincerely,
Ron
I don’t think I’ve ever read such uninformed, misleading (and potentially invented?) nonsense before:
“Unfortunately, Prokofieff was not the high initiate that Rudolf Steiner was: ”
Correct
“…he had no developed clairvoyant perception;” COMPLETE NONSENSE
“… he could not read the akashic records; nor could he converse with the bodhisattva-masters of East and West or with the superphysical celestial beings who guide human development.”
Open to debate
“Moreover, as a high Christian initiate, Rudolf Steiner dedicated his life to serving the saviour of mankind, Christ-Jesus. If Prokofieff really wanted to follow in Steiner’s footsteps then he would have likewise dedicated his life to serving Christ-Jesus and not anthroposophy, since anthroposophy is essentially a modern esoteric means of understanding our Saviour.”
Straw Man argument as usual….He did both. He served the Christ by truly serving anthroposophy – which incidentally Rudolf Steiner describes as the modern method of conscious dialogue with the Christ.
The list of inaccuracies, half truths and non-sequiturs continues…
“Steiner repeatedly emphasized that anthroposophy was not a Mystery religion or revival of ancient Gnosticism, but a “spiritual science” adapted to the modern age:”
Correct but with the implication that Steiner would then have also agreed with:
“Prokofieff, however, starting with his very first book, Rudolf Steiner and the Founding of the New Mysteries (1982), throughout his life erroneously maintained that Steiner founded “New Mysteries” of esoteric Christianity, what he termed, “Michael Mysteries.”
Except Rudolf Steiner, Ita Wegman, Marie Steiner, Sergei Prokofieff, Peter Selg…the list goes on…ALL agreed that Rudolf Steiner came to help Michael himself establish the new Michael Mysteries…
The arguments made in this article are just trivial in their approach…..and above all wrong.
Clearly teaching spiritual science before 40 will invoke tragedy upon the author and to a lesser extent the audience who may well be misled until corrected. Other cases lead me to believe that one would be well advised to treat this as an absolute prohibition. In P’s case, for me it renders a life’s work as ‘dodgy’ and one is in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater possibly as follows;
Whilst none of the ancient mysteries can be revived particularly the Gnosis which only ever lived in the sentient soul, do they not find their metamorphosis in the Christ impulse whose language is Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual science and thus a ‘contemporary mystery centre’ in this sense may be what he meant and this is OK (except that such a centre requires at least one initiate) for me.