Any relation between Jung and Rudolf Steiner?
Carl G Tillman
When comparing the works of Jung and Rudolf Steiner (the founder of the
Anthroposophical movement) one finds interesting similarities.
Jung lived between 1875-1961 and Steiner between 1861-1925; they were
both active in Swisserland. Did they ever meet each other? Are there any
references in their books to the other guy?
Carl G Tillman
<Goran....@stavanger.steiner.no>
Titus Roth
In article <56cpt4$t...@idefix.eunet.fi> jle...@helium.pp.fi (jle...@helium.pp.fi) writes:
> Jung makes one reference in passing... In "Letter to Pere Lachat"
> (CW 18, §1536) he says "Are they all same Christ - the Christ of the
> Synoptics, of the Excercitia Spiritualia, of a mystic of Mt. Athos, of
> Count Zinzendorf, of the hundred sects, of Caux and Rudolf Steiner,
> and - last but not least - of St. Paul?" This shows that he was at
> least aware of Steiner.
>
> If I visit the library of University this weekend, I'll look up from
> the index of the Collected Works, if there's more. I know Jung
> did not think much of H.P.Blavatsky's Theosophy, it would
> be interesting to know whether he was more sympathetic to
> the ideas of Steiner.
I do remember that Jung considered Anthroposophy more palatable than
Theosophy. At least he seemed to find Anthroposophists more reflective than
Theosophists. There were not only a few small references in CW, but some in
Dream Analysis Seminars. At least one in Letters that I remember also.
jle...@helium.pp.fi
Goran....@stavanger.steiner.no (Carl G Tillman) wrote:
>When comparing the works of Jung and Rudolf Steiner (the founder of the
>Anthroposophical movement) one finds interesting similarities.
>Jung lived between 1875-1961 and Steiner between 1861-1925; they were
>both active in Swisserland. Did they ever meet each other? Are there any
>references in their books to the other guy?
Jung makes one reference in passing... In "Letter to Pere Lachat"
(CW 18, §1536) he says "Are they all same Christ - the Christ of the
Synoptics, of the Excercitia Spiritualia, of a mystic of Mt. Athos, of
Count Zinzendorf, of the hundred sects, of Caux and Rudolf Steiner,
and - last but not least - of St. Paul?" This shows that he was at
least aware of Steiner.
If I visit the library of University this weekend, I'll look up from
the index of the Collected Works, if there's more. I know Jung
did not think much of H.P.Blavatsky's Theosophy, it would
be interesting to know whether he was more sympathetic to
the ideas of Steiner.
>Carl G Tillman
><Goran....@stavanger.steiner.no>
iona...@aol.com
Jung mentions Steiner four times in the CW referring to his work as an
attempt to make religion more scientifically purposeful.
I cannot imagine that Steiner was ignorant of Jung because he used to
attend some of Freud's lectures in Vienna. Steiner and Jung seem to have
had parallel systems, but Steiner was far more able to be bold in entering
the world of metaphysics tahn Jung. Jung struggled mightily to keep a
professional and clinical profile, despite his foresight and insight into
the spiritual implications of his life's work.
Steiner was a visionary mystic kin in a way to Swedenborg and openly made
statements about other realms of existence and his work was clearly
centered on Christ. Jung had to be far more restrained in what he
published given the sceptical climate of his time. Both men, however, were
passionately insistent on the development of spiritual consciousness. In
my opinion, one of Jung's greatest achievements was to explain in
psychological terms "the only way" described by all the avatars. Despite
the different religions arising throughout the world, there really is only
one way or _method!_ to find the divine Guest within us. He suggests that
this is the harmonious relationship between the ego (who we THINK we are
and the inner Self (atman, Christ Within, etc.) which is who we REALLY
are. Jung wrote that individuation theologically understood is
incarnation. The implications are enormous because if one is truly aware
of that inner source then it follows that everybody else has the same
source.
So my one-line definition of both Jung and Steiner's ideas or the message
they expressed in differing ways is:
"Becoming who you really are is what it's all about! "
Good luck!
T.T. Gerritsen
ti...@mothra.rose.hp.com (Titus Roth) wrote:
>I do remember that Jung considered Anthroposophy more palatable than
>Theosophy. At least he seemed to find Anthroposophists more reflective than
>Theosophists. There were not only a few small references in CW, but some in
>Dream Analysis Seminars. At least one in Letters that I remember also.
And Steiner, in turn, was aware of Jung and the two are said to have
actually met in a library. I don't know much in detail about the
encounter, but Steiner strongly opposed Jung's idea of the collective
unconscious, probably because he considered it a wrong description of
the spiritual realms he himself believed to be a conscious
investigator of.
Tanno Gerritsen
T.Ger...@inter.nl.net
tesse...@gmail.com
I was wondering the exact same thing yesterday as I read Wikipedia's entry on the "Akashic texts". Which seem to be coined by Steiner. I read Steiner's Wiki page and, seeing similarities with Jung, had to wonder. How interesting, these two men, the similarities and differences!
I found this website very interesting as well, for those who come here after me: http://www.naturasophia.com/Intuition.html.
It came up in the same Google search result; Steiner Jung.
ReMo...
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Psych/English/AP1946/PsyAnt_index.html
Psychoanalysis in the Light of Anthroposophy
By Rudolf Steiner
Translated by May Laird-Brown
From Bn/GA numbers 143, 178 & 205
These are lectures dating from the era when Freud's ideas weren't as
far-flung as now, but approached by Steiner late in life. Too, Jung's
sphere of influence had only begun to expand, and it would be *really*
interesting to know how much of CGJ's work that was extant before 1921
(which wasn't much) Steiner actually refers to.
Not that that matters much, because a provisional estimation might be
made that both anthroposophy and the conceptual edifice of Sigmund Freud
(and of course others, like James Hillman) represent the same bridge
between epochs.
debora...@gmail.com
> When comparing the works of Jung and Rudolf Steiner (the founder of the
> Anthroposophical movement) one finds interesting similarities.
> Jung lived between 1875-1961 and Steiner between 1861-1925; they were
> both active in Swisserland. Did they ever meet each other? Are there any
> references in their books to the other guy?
>
> <Goran....@stavanger.steiner.no>
Lovely to find this conversation, when I was wondering whether the two men knew each other. But, as the last person suggested, that doesn't really matter too much. They both emerged at a significant moment (and perhaps place?) in our collective evolution and each transported or energized us further in our journey, as seers or prophets do. Perhaps we all influence that journey, but such people play a larger part.
janet...@gmail.com
>
> researching on "jung anthroposophy" yielded this:
> http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Psych/English/AP1946/PsyAnt_index.html
>
> Psychoanalysis in the Light of Anthroposophy
> By Rudolf Steiner
> Translated by May Laird-Brown
> From Bn/GA numbers 143, 178 & 205
andrew...@modernsoulscience.com
But it's important to realize that at the time Steiner mentioned Jung's work as the relative best of the psychoanalysts at the time, Jung was still in the shadow of Freud, and hadn't had his "RED BOOK" experience yet. In other words, Jung hadn't had his initiation. Jung only went on to create his most important work after Steiner had already passed into the spiritual world.
Adrien Koo
> Steiner (in his lectures about Psychoanalysis) basically referred to Jung and the best of the lot. But he generalized the lot (the psychoanalysts) as dilettante occultists. And indeed they were.
>
> But it's important to realize that at the time Steiner mentioned Jung's work as the relative best of the psychoanalysts at the time, Jung was still in the shadow of Freud, and hadn't had his "RED BOOK" experience yet. In other words, Jung hadn't had his initiation. Jung only went on to create his most important work after Steiner had already passed into the spiritual world.
Janet Martha
Jung couldn’t possibly have expected his own visionary experiences to have been accessible to experiential verification by others. I don’t understand how he justified this off-hand dismissal of Steiner. But then again Jung never put his own experiences out for the public to scrutinise and forbade the publication of the Red Book til well after his death. The fact that he says he read “a few of Steiner´s books” makes me think Jung was, in fact, interested in Steiner, otherwise he wouldn’t bother with a second or third book by him. Maybe what Jung objected to was the public presentation of private visions, believing that there was no rational forum for comparing conflicting inner visions.
Valentin Tomberg’s “Meditations on the Tarot”, an absolutely amazing tour through philosophy, psychology and spirituality from a Christian Hermetic position, might help with how to value and compare such different personal visions, tho I still haven’t worked out exactly how. Tomberg talks a lot about Jung and Steiner, separately, and puts it all in a new (for me) perspective. It might be a useful exercise to talk about what Sephora of the Tree of Life (Kabbalah) Jung and Steiner were mostly active on, this might explain their mutual rejection of each other tho they had so much new (eternal and ancient) ground in common.
Chris
Sun Fish
> damn a 26yo question
Let's keep this one alive, shows the relevance of the awakening we are in today