Was die "tibetischen Meister" über Steiner denken würden, wenn es sie gäbe

Auszug aus einem Beitrag von Tom Mellett aus der WC- Liste in den USA. Er berichtet von einem Gespräch, in dem es darum ging, dass die Krise der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft aus dieser Sicht der Dinge von Rudolf Steiner selbst verursacht worden sei- wegen seiner inneren Zerrissenheit und seiner Phobien gegen Kritiker. An Tom Dank im voraus. Diese Sicht, die ihm da aus welchen Quellen auch immer dargereicht wurde, ist natürlich gespickt mit einem ganzen Korb von Giftpfeilen gegen Steiner. Natürlich soll sein Rang demontiert werden, sein Ruf geschädigt. Das ist wohl keine Frage. Dennoch nimmt man diese Sicht auch einmal unvoreingenommen wahr:

"Now let me tell you about a fascinating and totally unexpected conversation about Rudolf Steiner I had with Elmer Green in 2004 --- which may go a long way to explain why those Anthro lists became more and more fundamentalist.
Elmer Green is, by career, a physicist. He was born in 1918 and he's still alive, now 92 years old. He is famous in the New Age world for being one of the founding fathers of Bio-Feedback, specifically, Neuro-feedback. In 1964, he established the Research Department of the Psychophysiology Laboratory at the Menninger Clinic in Topeka, Kansas where he is now emeritus professor.
I met him in 2004 at the PRS here in L.A. (PRS = Philosophical Research Society founded by Manley Palmer Hall in 1934. ..)


In the course of our conversation, I happened to mention Rudolf Steiner and Elmer lit up, telling me that he had studied anthroposophy a bit in the 1940's and 50's. A nice connection, and not too unexpected given the milieu of our meeting. But then the next sentence floored me as it will you. Elmer said: "And did you know what the Tibetan Masters told me about Rudolf Steiner?" 
"Say what! The Tibetan Masters. Told you? I'm all ears. Tell me!"


Elmer proceeded to tell me about his own experiences with the Tibetan Masters. Now I'm obviously not vouching for the objective reality of the Masters --- as they may have been figments of Blavatsky's imagination based on actual Hindu men she met in India --- nor am I vouching for the truth of their reality from what Elmer told me. But it's what he said they said about Rudolf Steiner because it resonated so well with my own conclusions that I had been putting together at that time.
In short, Elmer told me: "Steiner went past the karmic boundaries set by his own `Ring-Pass-Not' in the spiritual world. As a result, the contents of anthroposophy that he brought back to the physical world to teach his followers was distorted and contaminated by that violation." 


Now the "Ring-Pass-Not" is a technical esoteric term that refers to the limits that an initiate has to explore the spiritual world. It is actually defined by the unredeemed or unconscious personal karma of the initiate. You might call it the initiate's "blind spot," because it is the part of his personal karma that he fails to acknowledge or reckon with. 


But of course, other people can see it, and according to Elmer, the Tibetan masters saw it clearly in Steiner. Furthermore, what Elmer said was that in Steiner's particular case, whatever he brought as let's say "gold nuggets" from the Akashic record, would cause great conflict and strife when he taught them to his followers. 


The point Elmer emphasized was that Rudolf Steiner's teachings were pretty objectively accurate for an initiate, but the problem was that his unredeemed karma, his Doppelgaenger, or Lower Guardian of the Threshold was then affecting how these truths were received by his followers, plunging them therefore into chaotic conflicts which would undermine and ultimately destroy the movement Steiner was hoping to inaugurate. 


All I could say to Elmer was: "Bingo! Thank you! You've just articulated something I've been ruminating about for the last few years now."


Elmer's unexpected statements put an exclamation point on my own growing sense that Rudolf Steiner had to have external enemies. I'm not saying he was paranoid, but he thrived on having opposition, to having enemies out to destroy his "baby" anthroposophy. It's like he thrived on and felt vindicated by having strong external opposition. (Perhaps it derives from his very physical birth where the midwife botched his cord cutting and the baby Rudi began to hemorrhage and thus was in danger of dying just after being born.) 


At any rate, I felt vindicated in my own assessment of Steiner that he projected much of his fear and anger on those opponents. He needed to scapegoat them in order to sutrvivde and thrive.


Now Stephen, consider that Rudolf Steiner united his own personal karma with the karma of the Society at the Christmas Conference of 1923 into 1924. 


But how much of that unredeemed karma therefore became loaded on to the personal karma of any Anthroposophist who took up his teachings? In short, I think you can `read" the unredeemed karma of Rudolf Steiner from the very problems and failures of the Society itself. If the Society has failed, if the Threefold Social Order has failed, there is no one else to blame but Rudolf Steiner himself and I mean to blame him personally for those failures because he did not acknowledge the deficiencies of his own personal karma that he then unconsciously laid on all Anthroposophists in addition to laying the Foundation Stone (both dodecahedron and Meditation) at the Goetheanum."


E