Anthroposophy in Russian Thinkers’ Appreciations.

Anthroposophy Society of Russia was founded on September, 20, 1913 in Moscow. That day in Germany the corner-stone of »Goetheanum» — the future shrine of anthroposophy was laid. The Society appeared owing to R. Steiner’s faithful adherents such as Boris P. Grigoriev, its first chairman (1883- 1945) and his wife Nadezhda A. Burykshina (1887-1959). Anthroposophy was followed by A. Turgeneva, A. Bely, P. Trapeznikov, M. Voloshin, M.Voloshina- Sabashhikova, and others.

Russian actor and director M. Chekhov (1891-1955) saw in R. Steiner’s theatre doctrine some mysterial actions. The process of hero’s spiritual transfiguration, his going into the way of understanding of the highest truth was shown by him in his staginngs of «Hamlet» and his dramatizations of A. Bely’s «Petersburgh».

M. Voloshin in his «Autobiography» calls anthroposophy a stage of his spirit’s wandering (»The Saturnus», «Blood», «The Sun», «The Moon», «Two Demons», etc.), and M. Voloshina-Sabashnikova remains true to anthroposophy studies unlike her husband up to her life-end. She described in details her life years near Steiner in her autobiographic book «Green Snake» (1994).
In the end of the 20-s Society was annihilated and many of its adherents were imprisoned and exiled.
The aim of this article is to present anthroposophy in appreciations of three Russian thinkers: Andrew Bely, Nikolai Berdyaev, and Andrew Kuraev. All of them are united with their common strivings after their own reflecting of their impressions about Steiner’s studies, and separated with not only by time, but also by their attitude to the epoch they lived in (besides A. Kuraev, who is in good health now).
Anthroposophy was the most important period in Bely’s long search of the basis of his world outlook. If Berdyaev worked out the philosophical aspect of anthroposophy, Kuraev — its Orthodox one, that Bely entered anthroposophic world-viewing not as a philosopher, but as an individual who was inclined to reflect mysterious emotions in poetic form.
Having seen in Steiners studies the elements uniting it with Tolstoy’s studies he together with A. Turgeneva listened for the first time to Steiner’s lectures in Koln in May, 1912 and became Steiner’s follower. It seemed to Bely that time that in Doctor’s doctrine he found those one that can be called unconscious strivings of conscious working of the previous years. In 1912, when Steiner had not been breaking off with theosophical movement Bely wrote to M. Morozova from Basel. «... Steiner for me is one who worked himself consciously for this work for the benefit of the future was not fruitless... only faith is not enough, only confessing is not enough; it is necessary to raise the banner really; it is not enough to wear the cross, it is necessary the Christ’s cross to be burnt out in Thou for it to pre-exist your blood « (A. Bely. «Peterburg»).
What was Bely attracted with in anthroposophy?
To answer this question it is necessary to address to the outstanding Russian poet’s letters and reminiscences from which it is seen that he was attracted to the ideas of anthroposophy which the progressive intelligentsia of that time had not regrasped yet because of the lack of the ground with the idea of his own individual improvement (this idea is laid in methodology of Waldorf School); and Steiner’s reliance on individuality: the idea of possibility to discover in your own inner world eternal essense existing in the ideal form. It is that discovering, how Bely thinks, must appear the basis of uniting people into world-wide brotherhood (Bely joins here Grail’s idea addressing to which Steiner also liked), which will prepare Christ’s Second Coming who remained on the Earth in an ethereal body through His Blood.
It is the statement that through anthroposophy in a human being’s conscious the idea of that the period of living on the Earth, from birth till deaths is an insignificant piece of eternal which can be understood through the intuition of existing to become one of the reasons of adopting by Bely the anthroposophy but not another philosophical trend. Bely looked in Steiner’s studies for Christ not on anthroposophic but on Sophie ways which remind more V. Solovyev’s ideas. He wanted both to save his spontaneously - mysterious gusts and find Christ. Being in constant fervent excitement Bely imagined himself as a favorite Steiner’s follower grasping his emotions as mysticism’s experience on which the honor of devoting into Grail’s knight by Steiner’s hands was put.
Andrew Bely’s attitude to philosophical concepts also shows that anthroposophy influenced his world outlook greatly. For example, the category of eternal we can find in his anthology, »Gold in Azure», which was worked out later in his «symphonies» (the third symphony, »Returning», the fourth one «Blizzards Cup».).
Bely found forming of an individual in far past and confirmed by that metempsychosis of the Eastern studies. To his mind a human being existed in this world. The direct confirmation of it A. Bely saw in intuition. As Bely wrote: « ...from the point of view of philosophy of the East an idea can stop existing but it does not stop being» . Intuition connects a human being with pra-history; its experience lays in subconscious which is non-understood knowledge for Bely.
According to Bely an artificial falling asleep, plunging yourself into the state between sleeping and staying awake (in occu1tism — «limpid sleeping» and in K. Jung’s science — directed imagination); watching after your spontaneous dids and acts, etc. can help to understand such knowledge.
Anthroposophic direction, belief in eternal value of human spirit which connects an individual with «other worlds», cognition of which Bely refers to the competence of supersensitive comprehension described in details in Steiner’s books is clearly seen in poet’s and philosopher’s worldoutlooking lookings. Steiner stated that a human being understanding eternal sees in historic events that one can’t be broken by the time. (This is interpreted by Bely as e... a form of inner intuitions’ . He penetrates from non-eternal history to eternal ones [Steiner R. Prom the World Chronicle. Moscow, 1914, p.2].
Steiner’s followers who have found their task neither in history nor in real life were captivated with such an interpretation of the category «eternal». Bely’s tendency to exaltation, his feeling all the depth of the tragism of contacting with the real but not embroidered with romantic dreams life which he saw in all its contradictions and conflicts from intimately-personal up to socially-historical could seem a possibility of finding themselves in a new state — as an independent from ephemeral history value over which time is not powerful.
But Bely whose mentality is truly called by F.D. Stepun «exersices on flying trapezes under his lonely «Fs» «dome» was disappointed in Steiner as he was disappointed earlier in the other philosophic systems too.
Hoping to find in Steiner clarity concrete directions on the way of finding in a human being truly brother essense Bely confessed to M. Tsvetaeva later: «if I were an officer... Even a soldier. The enemy, we, black, white — what a stillness, It is that 1 was looking for at Doctor’s, it is that I haven’t found» [8, p.301].
Kotik Letaev, part one of the novel .My Life, being written in 1917-1918 is considered to be a brilliant illustrations to Steiner’s doctrine. Frankly anthroposophic work was issued in 1922. Steiner’s studies about a child’s early intelligence as a process of entering it (like body capsule) conscious which hovers outside the body but near it found here there full personification. The idea of a human being’s (in the work — a baby) border being, his being on the edge of mode (mode of the flat of the professor in Arbat) and being impulses (going to it from over star wideness of the Universe which are comprehended by a baby as ˆsymbols of Eternity) is fully realized in this novel.
The mythology about Steiner who was presented by hisesteemees in the rank of a provisory and a savior of the mankind without his agreement (like somever G. Khrishnamurti was considered by theosophies to be an embodied Christ) was literary, going into tradition hiding its own symbolics. Steiner was so restrained by his nature that his occultism was not noticed in the West. He liked more the Eastern model than Rosenkreiser’s a gnostically sophic «spiritual science» of a human being. Like departing from his own symbolistic world outlook Bely creats a poem «Christ’s Risen» in 1918. In the basis of his concept Bely shows his own understanding of the revolution. An anthroposophic idea of a spiritual substance which can exist without a material capsule. Bely shows the revolution as something frankly mysterial that is renewal in general. During this process the material «capsule» of the world is being thrown down uncovering its «spiritual body» which is associated with the idea of Christ who is believed to be a divine absolute.
Bely-symbolist drove out in his poem concreteness believing that it contradict to the idea of riseness. That is why he differs from Blok in the interpretation of the revolution. If the first one considered the history to be a translational motion of the mankind to the light final (poem «Twelve»), Bely interpreted it as the process of liberation of the mankind and an individual from being dependant on matter and coming to finding of clear spirituality.
All this underlines utopical characters of Bely’s dreams, which are reduced to one common prevalence — unity everybody with everybody.
Anthroposophy commune according to Bely’s descriptions has no, cathedrality — in religious understanding -spirit. And when he following the directive on Js development remained face to face with himself he could not resist from the attack of the dark energy which was not described in the terms of anthroposophy. He was saved not owing to the dealing with anthroposophy but owing to a hot prayer in front of Saint Seraphim icon, owing to the Orthodox.
The break-down happened to Bely, the sharpness of individual crisis, and reappreciation of Steiner followed it were such that Bely called Steiner a devil. But in his Reminiscences about Steiner (1928-1929) Steiner was described by Bely not as a prince of hell but as a simple person who first showed him Christ. Bely notices like in passing that Steiner’s call to development means Christ’s awakening in soul. Steiner’s image is doubly strong in Bely’s experience in difference from Berdyaev and Kuraev who criticized Steiner only on the basis of his texts having no personal dealing with Doctor.
L.K. Dolgopolov, an expert of Bely’s creative work notices fairly: “The main for Bely from his acquaintance with Steiner and his doctrine is the idea of the necessity in personal moral improvement, finding in himself «the highest» («divine») essense, the idea of the full inner rebirth» [1].
Bely’s dreams of anthroposophy reduced with years. As he found he took from Steiner an illusion — ability to up bring in him supernatural spiritual 1 energy.
Bely’s disappointment in anthroposophy developed into the sign of equality between Steiner’s studies and «peredonovschina». (A character of F. Sologub’s novel «A Mean-spirited Devil»). He kept to these views long enough.
A. Blok said about A. Bely: »His individuality, soul, spirit develops the atmosphere of saint alarm... Therefore his presence is especially important» [Lit. Nasledstvo. Т.92. B.3. P.505.]. Such alarm presence of Bely we can see not only in the world of literature but also in anthroposophy movement, of what clearly and in details he writes in his article Why I Became a Symbolist [2, p.418].
In difference from deeply individual appreciation of anthroposophy by poet-symbolist Bely, philosopher N. Berdyaev is from those Russian thinkers whose mind is always listened to. But the fact that people who worked out whole philosophic systems can follow their own subjective point of view is not always taken into consideration.
As it is known Berdyaev’s distinctive feature was his aspiration to spirit which was expressed in questing not for God, but spirit. Berdyaev wanted to sense Christ-Godman, to correlate spirit with a subject’s activity, He believed that endowing spirit with predicates do not catch the essense of «spiritual», remains in the spell of objectivations. Berdyaev like Steiner attached great importance to a human being’s «I» considering its development to be the task of the epoch. Feeling interest to the spirit and accenting of «I» Berdyaev disappointed in anthroposophy. The Russian philosopher saw Steiner’s main merit in Gnostic instructions but believed anthroposophy to be the continuation of positivism of the 19th century. He also believed that the principles rising to the invisible plans of being which were propounded by Steiner obsoleted. Berdyaev supposes that Steiner does not know the pure essense of being, and his clairvoyance separates the world; that anthroposophy does not know God, does not know a human being, that it is .a cosmic fascination’’ which eliminates real creative work. Berdyaev has not seen Christ in anthroposophy. He has seen in it only a mysterial «cosmic impulse», although our experience of knowledge with this studies shows that it was Christ who was put by Berdyaev into the ground of christologic theme because the impulse showing the mankind the way how not to become morally half-wild and rudely material is going from Christ. Berdyaev had not found in anthroposophy freedom, creative work, love, abundance, mystery. To Berdyaev’s mind Steiner’s world- contemplation feels unknown not as a mystery but as a secret.
N. Berdyaev speaks critically not only of anthroposophy as a world outlook but also anthroposophy as studies.

Сritisizing anthroposophy Berdyaev still acknowledges that these studies «enthra1led people more intelligent»[4, p. 1913]. He ranges among them Vyacheslav Ivanov, Andrew Bely, and all young people who rallied around «Musaget» publishing house and were engrossed with anthroposophy and other kinds of occultism. Berdyaev speaks about that the adherents of anthroposophy suspected each other in taking part in illegal societies, hinted in talks on their own knowledge of occultism having no such knowledge in fact. Criticizing anthroposophy (and all sorts of debility) Berdyaev was not always consistent: «I acknowledge existence of occultical abilities in a human being» — he wrote [4, p. 194].
Berdyaev made not always accurate conclusions of occultism in general and anthroposophy in particular. So, he, for example, identified the occultism of Tibet Mahatmas with Steiner’s one.
Putting the sign of equality between anthroposophy and theosophy Berdyaev did not take into consideration the differences of Steiner’s style from the style of theosophy: Steiner’s style has no those colorful descriptions inherent in theosophical school— presented by works of Ye. Blavatsky, D. Alcott, G. Khrishnamurti, A. Bezant, the Rerichs, and others. Anthroposophy based itself on the western paradigm of thinking, was oriented to mind, and therefore did not take evocative Indian mysticism and inevitability of karma in a human being’s fate seriously.
Steiner tried to enrich the science of the West by instilling into its bellows new anthroposophic interpretation of the problems, which cannot be solved on the level of ratip. He found himself closed for understanding but not for accusations of creating a new belief without Christ. In fact he created the school in the focus of which there was no impersonal Absolute (Steiner understood under it not God how some scientists suppose but theosophic interpretation of the Eastern religions) but deified nature of a human being which is by its level of self-consciousness and spirit with Divine without rising it in the status of an extreme individualist. A human being’s consciousness in anthroposophy is active, not passive. This is the radical difference of Steiner’s studies from theosophy. According to the studies a human being’s spirituality has a rationalistic limit outside of which faith in God as in the Highest Absolute opens. How God cannot be cognized, so Human Being is infinite! As for Berdyaev, he believes that there exists some more occultic power in a human being which the science modern to him cannot explain using its methods. By that he gives diviners the right to accuse him of familiarity with that which the church itself warns of: everything what is not from God is displaying of Satanism.
Criticizing occultism, theosophy, and anthroposophy for cosmocentrism Berdyaev sees the truth in Christianity. But it is .fundamental anthropocentrism itself. Berdyaev does not find a human being in anthroposophy having lost him from sight because of the studying it not enough. Steiner considers a human being to be a citizen of three worlds but it does not say that a human being melts in mysterious powers of the Cosmos, depersonalizes. He tries to cognize these powers but is not being absorbed by them.
Accusing an anthroposopher of corrupting the wholeness of human being individuality, interpreting occultism like the sphere of necessity but not freedom, Berdyaev presents anthroposophers as possessed and dogmatic people.
Ascribing the temptation of power over souls to Steiner Berdyaev paints his psychological portrait in tones of an ascetic and sufferer: Steiner is not only an abundativeless person but also a demoniacal incarnation who wishes to be not a ray «from above», but a gainer of souls from bellow desiring «by an ardent effort to break through to the spiritual world» [3, p. 1911. Non-acknowledgement of the Western studies in Russian cultural set defined Berdyaev’s position in criticizing Steiner and his studies, the German style of thinking in the whole.
The attitude to anthroposophy from the positions of the Orthodox is presented by the point of view of Andrew Kuraev, a deacon-diviner, the author of the book Satanism for Intelligentsia (Moscow, 1997), the polemical focus of which is mainly focused on the Rerichs studies and anthroposophy.
Expressing his opinion of the Rerichs creative work Andrew Kuraev overthrows their studies (The Church against the Rerichs, chapter 7). Making a comparative analysis of the Orthodox with other religions, Christian confessions, with sects, Andrew Kuraev did not remain occultism without attention too and gave it a very negative appreciation: ‘The most primitive receipt of draping occultism into Christian clothes is an action based on the principle: «there’s elder in the kitchen garden, so there’s the uncle in Kiev» [5, p.295].
Leaning towards N. Berdyaev’s mind and Sergei Bulgakov’s impression that «Steiner was amateurishly acquainted with philosophical trends» Kuraev shares them [5, pp.303-304].
Nevertheless we suppose that Rudolf Steiner in such creative work as «Christianity as a Mystic Fact» an occultic but still philosophical doctrine, and not simply anthrohypnosis and imposture has presented [5, p.304].
Like Andrew Kuraev the other authorities of religious- philosophical thought, for example, Vassily Zenkovsky, present anthroposophy as the studies about dark spirituality in a human being: «...anthroposophy does not know the secret of a human being in his wholeness and in his personal attitude to God».
This father Vassily point of view testifies that anthropological principle of anthroposophy about acknowledgement of a human being as a system-making source of any culture is not shared by Steiner’s critics.
Andrew Kuraev quotes also Boris Vysheslavtsev’s arguments who consider that «Steiner is wholly in the power of muddled sub consciousness; his conscious thought is archaic and infantile» [5, p.305]. This testimony does not take into consideration Steiner’s psychological mould.
Andrew Kuraev also quotes Ivan Ilyin sharp opinions:
United counteraction against Steiner’s anti-culture must be organized otherwise new facts of violating of the individual and ideas will follow immeasurably... Steiner’s «Anthroposophy» is the studies which is inimical both to real philosophy and real art». However if anthroposophy were 4the organized culture of satanism it would not be written by Andrew Bely that Culture is Christianity: Christianity is the religion of which has self-awareness. This is the view on the culture of anthroposophy: «...culture is anthropodition which combines theodition with Cosmodition» [5, p.311].
To our mind anthroposophy is not inimical either to philosophy or real art. It is the studies which is not only philosophical but also the spiritual one because it opens to the scientist all their conceptual contest not throw new facts of violating individuals and ideas but basing on all spiritual past of the mankind, its experience and mistakes.
It would be more expedient to analyze Steiner’s studies and individuality soberly but not in the fervor of noncompromis polemics.
Andrew Kuraev, addressing to the reminiscences of a priest and diviner George Florovsky, writes about the moods of the beginning of the 20th century: «This (i.e. anthroposophical) set-back of Gnosticism remains a very model and significant episode in recent religious development of Russian intelligentsia... Since 1912 Andrew Bely leaves for anthroposophy. It was one of the deadlocks of religious neo-westernism» [5, p.307].
However, today anthroposophy went out of the settings of religious neo-westernism long time ago. It also went out of the settings of national (German) culture. It rose up to human culture having added to it a new educational educative concept that answers the necessity of social- historical development including the pedagogical one (e.g., Waldorf pedagogic).
Andrew Kuraev quotes also the attitude of father Pavel Florensky to theosophy and anthroposophy [5, p.307]. The views expressed by a sophiologist considering occultic trends were connected first of all with Florensky letter to Andrew Bely in 1914 in which Florensky expressed his hope that Bely would give up his enthusiasm to anthroposophy. And he had not mistaken. Soon Bely being disappointed with the atmosphere of German middle—class conventionality, which is perfectly described in the series of works under the common title «Symbolism as an Understanding of the World», departed from Steiner. Pavel Florensky confesses honestly: «But what I can say about anthroposophy. As a matter of fact, nothing. To you. Everything what is said about in it, and said by you in particular, sounds so formally that it can be said «yes» to everything and «no», to everything depending on the contest of experience which these outlines are filled with...»[father Pavel Florensky. The First Steps of Philosophy//Works in 4 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1996. P.823].
This letter to Andrew Bely was not sent. There exists a rough draft, which remained in Florensky archives. But Florensky hoped that Andrew Bely would calm down in his spiritual experience daring attempts and find his originality on the way to the truth.
Alexander Men’s interpretation of anthroposophy is not without interest too [5, pp.3l2-3l3].
He considers Steiner unlike Ilyin or Bulgakov’s to be the individual who is gifted and nice, «a typical result of the late Austrian culture at the border of the last and our Century». As Men acknowledges not without a regret, Steiner if he would not be an anthroposopher could serve the truth, Christianity, but he chose the way of occultism which to Men’s mind is an illusory one: « . . .occultic goes into lateral parallel universes... A human being can stray among these images all his life.., create whole systems of worlds, astral worlds, corridors, hierarchies, and get stuck in this endless rotation of the created world» [6, p.354].
But Men do not take into consideration that fact that Steiner was not immersing a human being into «endless rotation of the created world» but pointed how the action of the «external» and «internal» human being leads him to healthy interemotion, not into elaterid parallel universes». Steiner saw the last ones inside a human being, not outside him. The task of a human being’s life is not to go astray in astral worlds but to understand his mission on the Earth more perfectly. Such philosophic-occultic hidden motive changes the view not only on the idea about anthroposophy but puts the sense of teaching and the contest of education into creatively-pedagogical, esoterically plane.
Having viewed A. Bely’s, N. Berdyaev’s, and A. Kuraev’s attitude to Steiner’s creative work we have come to conclusions, which allow to see these thinkers’ expressions in a different light. They have undoubtedly made their unique contribution to the Russian culture of the 20th century.
A. Bely’s meeting with anthroposophy was deeply personal. The main that Bely took from it is the memory about Steiner-a man.
Anthroposophy influenced greatly on Bely’s world outlook, his way of life, fate, creative work. Bely found in Steiner an opening possibility of creating his own life according to the laws of artistic creative work as creating a work of art. He was so enthusiastic about Steiner’s concept of elife-creative-working that showed even the symptoms of mental disorder. Having admitted these studies through him A. Bely came to disappointment in them. This question will remain the last mystery of Bely’s and Steiner’s meeting which remained for the first «Unexpected Joy» of his life.
In the expressions of N. Berdyaev and A. Kuraev on anthroposophy a sharp appreciation of R. Steiner’s studies sounds. The most irreconcilable points of their polemics with Steiner-testify that they in many respects argued about the non-provable things.
Anthroposophers do not pretend on a hidden belief in Doctor. Steiner’s experience is not a «temptation and se1f-delusion» but a true and original one which needs because of its originality in studying and impartial interpretation.
The crisis which Russian school is going through nowadays on the background of indefinite sociopolitical, ideological, and educational prospects in the country, and where contradictions in the outline process of self- development — system of traditional upbringing are being actualized, is an anxiety not of the intelligentsia only but also of the society which set a task to overcome the conservatism of content, to comprehend traditional forms, and methods of upbringing in a new way.
That is why it is necessary to analyze critically, and to take into account basic tendencies in the evolution of pedagogic. What way it will progress; how it will reform the education at schools; how it will throw what has not settled down; what patterns for teaching what is useful it will present. Now in Russia the theories of foreign pedagogies which promote the ideas of progressive pedagogical ideology are made widely accessible.
The most well-known among them is the Wahldorf pedagogies which was founded in 1919 by R. Steiner (1861 — 1925).
This trend received an active support of mass media, and is being inculcated in different cities of Russia. But in modern literature in pedagogies, there is no sufficiently full investigation in anthroposophy, though Steiner was an author more than 300 volumes of works.
In Russia the problems of the Wahldorf Trend and Steiner’s legacy are being investigated by 0. V. Cherkasova, A. L. Bitov, A. A. Pinsky, and others. But pity for, the extent of that what has already studied, remains in the insufficient level. It is explicable, if to take into account that during a long period of years many foreign innovations remained inaccessible for scientific circle of Russia in the view of the fact of their disperancy to the dialectic materialistic world outlook.
In modern Russia in connection with the reform of society, and the system of education, a need for attentive study of philosophical-pedagogical ideas, and popular pedagogical trends arises. And actuality of the undertaken investigation can be explained by this.
The theoretical basis of the Wahldorf pedagogies is anthroposophy which is an integrated and original theory in which philosophical, religious, out confessional and pedagogical ideas found their expression. The doctrine itself appeared in 1913 when scientifically-one-sided way of thinking which was in crisis, stopped satisfying human knowledge, and pedagogies also.
As a language of anthroposophy, Steiner set the problems which are also of actuality nowadays (spirituality of a human being nature in the unity and harmony with the cosmos, society, and with him). He spoke against tecnocratization of thinking, for attaching to it purely logical forms of cognitive activity.
«Pure thinking», and innermost (mystical) knowledge in Steiner’s studies is understood as a rise of attention to evocative understanding of the world, individuauzation of a person, an integrated apprehension of a human being. It is necessary for this to apply in an investigation the synthetic method which springs up on a boundary between different sciences, and which is only now gathering its real run. Narrow specialization of disciplines about a human being was not capable of executing this task. But for to inculcate a progressive pedagogical theory into practice, the idea which would be capable of gathering into the united whole a man whose inner self-disconnection in rationally orientated western civilization is evident, was needed. In spite of diametrically opposed appreciations of the Wahldorf Trend (from uncritically ardent, to skeptical), — for today, human knowledge has no their starting idea which would answer modern pedagogical practice aspirations. Only because of this, pedagogical— philosophical principles which present the Wahldorf pedagogies as an integrated system based on united methodology, following from anthroposophical views on a human being as a highest product of his own spirit, are needed. And here, this quality is put in (him base of pedagogical ideas.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.
1. Bely A. The Problems of Creative Work. Moscow, Soviet sky Pisatel, 1988.
2. Bely A. Symbolism as an Understanding of the World. Moscow, Republic, 1994.
3. Berdyaev N.A. Theosophy and Anthroposophy in Russia. Moscow, 1991.
4. Berdyaev N.A. The Philosophy of Free Spirit. Moscow, 1994.
5. Kuraev A. Satanism for Intelligentsia. About the Rerichs and the Orthodox. In 2 volumes. Moscow, Moscow Podvorye of Troitse-Sergieva Lavra; Otchy Dom, 1997.
6. Men A. The Bible and the Literature of the 20th century. The World Culture. Christianity. The Church Lectures and Talks. Moscow, 1995.
7. Stepun F.D. The Former and the Unfounded. London,
1990.
8. Tsvetaeva M. Works in 2 Volumes. Moscow, 1980.
Vladimir Naumenko,
Candidate of Pedagogic (2000)
About the Author:
Vladimir Naumenko, born in 1972. Education: Rostov on-Don State Pedagogical University, History Faculty
(1996); Master of Education (1997). Scientific Degree:
Candidate of Pedagogic (2000). Author novel «Cosmians»
(2001; 2002; 2003).

Выводы к главе 3.

Обзор критических высказываний русских мыслителей об антропософии позволил проследить её воздействие на менталитет творческой интеллигенции России.

Я пришёл к выводу, которые позволяют в ином свете воспринимать высказывания этих мыслителей, чьё мировоззрение, образ жизни, судьба и творчество оказали существенное влияние на российскую культуру 20 века.

1. А.Белый глубоко лично пережил увлечение учением Р.Штайнера. Оно отразилось на его духовных исканиях и в его художественном творчестве.

2. Н.А.Бердяев и Эллис специально глубоко не исследовали это учение, и дали несколько односторонне-критических высказываний его отдельным положениям. На мой взгляд, неправомерно ссылками на Н.А.Бердяева и Эллиса давать исключительно отрицательную оценку идеям Р.Штайнера в области оккультизма и педагогики.

3. А.Кураев не дал собственных критических суждений, вытекающих из самостоятельного анализа антропософии, он следует традициям православия и не приемлет этого учения.

Всё это говорит о том, что вальдорфские педагоги должны корректно и ясно показывать, что они не представители новой «секты», и в учебно-воспитательном процессе не ведут его к антропософской индоктринации детей. Они несут полную педагогическую, юридическую и моральную ответственность за вверенных им детей и должны объяснять родителям, что они не делают богопротивное и антихристианское.

Помимо антропософских установок, вальдорфская школа должна создавать условия для выбора личностью ценностных ориентиров, активизировать внутреннюю работу личности и различными способами формировать у неё глубоко осмысленные убеждения, принципы и качества: политические, религиозные и нравственные. Но пока такой выбор, к сожалению, в вальдорфских школах отсутствует, что даёт исследователям обоснованное право считать её не в полной мере свободной.

Глава 4.

Не нашли, что искали? Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: