“Look into the religion of Shiva, study it carefully; and you will follow me when I say
that the Shiva religion of India can be understood when one has knowledge of the
Lucifer Being. For Shiva is in reality Lucifer in the form in which he is not yet overcome
[on 'Ancient Sun'].”1
“I will now give you first of all the definition of what is meant by human earthly
knowledge. It consists of the blunted impulses of destruction, of Shiva in his most
terrifying aspect, but so blunted that he cannot express them to the full, but himself
has become impoverished, has been reduced to the world of human ideas – this is the
inner maya, the knowledge of man. This knowledge had to be weakened, and equally
the impulses and inner forces, in order that the originally destructive element where
Ahriman holds sway – for originally it was Ahriman who provoked this wish – in order
that Ahriman’s power should be so far emasculated that man should not fall victim to
Ahriman and thereby make himself permanently a servant of Shiva. The totality of
these forces had to be so far weakened that they only hold sway in so far as he can
enter into the being of others with his ideas and conceptions....
Although the paths followed by black magic are very diverse, the result is always a
kind of alliance with Ahriman, with Shiva.”2
If for no other reason, when considering the great care Rudolf Steiner took in distinguishing
these two faces of evil, Lucifer and Ahriman, we might feel a problem presents itself with the
clear identification in these two lectures of Shiva first with Lucifer, and then with Ahriman.
Without doing exactly what Steiner suggests, study the “Shiva Religion”, it is impossible to
make sense of this. Only by educating ourselves in it can we avoid misunderstanding and
blind acceptance.
First, it is important to realize that the “Shiva Religion” in India is not at all homogenous. Not
only must we draw attention to three basic streams, but we must also call attention to the
Tantras, which many consider older than the Vedas, which are commonly divided into the
dualistic, the non-dualistic, and the “mixed” Tantras. These three streams existed in what we
know as pre-Vedic times. Simply put, “dualistic” and “non-dualistic” refers to the relationship
between the transcendent aspect of the universe, which transcends all, and the immanent
aspect, the world of beings. The dualistic stream is predominantly centered in Southern India
where the non-dualistic stream was centered in what is now Pakistan.
When Steiner refers to the “Trimurti”, the Trinity, of which Shiva is one of the Three Great
Gods, he is referring to the dualistic stream which has the greatest number of adherents. In
this Trimurti, Shiva is the Destroyer of the universe bringing it back into the Godhead, Brahma
self-born out of the naval of Visnu, creates the world, Visnu maintains it in existence. Except
for the most ardent adherents of different streams Shiva is considered the most powerful of
1 “Man in the Light of Occultism, Theosophy and Philosophy”, lecture 10
2 “The Effects of Spiritual Development”, lecture 8, Rudolf Steiner Press, 1978, translated by A.H.Parker
1
the three. But more important for consideration of the quotes above is how Shiva destroys.
It is also important to understand the “Shiva” of the non-dual stream is quite different than
“Shiva the Destroyer” of the dualistic stream.
For the vast majority of Indians, today and in the past, different streams consider different
members of the Trimurti “God”. The Vaisnava stream considers Visnu “God”, for the dualistic
Shaivite stream, Shiva is “God”. However, for the non-dual streams, all members of the trinity
are “Supergods”, beings who have completed their evolution, beings beyond the “Christian
Hierarchy”, as Steiner himself indicates in his lectures “The Hierarchies” and elsewhere, but
they are all beings. Shiva, for non-dual Shaivism however, is not a being at all, but transcends
all beings. The Shiva of the dualistic streams is an aspect only of this “Parama” Shiva, this
“Highest Shiva” - “Parama” meaning “filled” with the 5 primal powers of consciousness;
omniscience, will, activity, knowledge and bliss. In non-dual Shaivism, the esoteric meaning of
“Shiva” is “Primal Consciousness” with its unlimited potency. That Shiva, although referred to
as a being, is known not to be a being at all but at most, being as such.
To even begin to understand the issues raised by the quotes above, it is also essential to
understand the basic difference between Indian and Western spirituality. It is commonly held
in Anthroposophical circles that the manner of expression found in Indian spirituality is one
belonging to an older cultural epoch and that with Anthroposophy, the vocabulary and
manner of speaking has been made appropriate to “modern man” with the content essentially
the same. Steiner certainly adds to this belief when he says that there is nothing in Eastern
(Indian) Spirituality that has not come over into Anthroposophy. However, there is something
in Indian Spirituality that has not come into Anthroposophy and it is the orientation of Indian
Spirituality. It is this difference in orientation that constitutes, in one sense, the most essential
aspect. For both Anthroposophy and Indian “Thought”, the orientation gives an overall tone,
or an underlying tone, to the expressions. The tone, in turn, establishes and reinforces
certain views, dualism, or non-dualism, in addition to others, and this is so whether or not
these terms are themselves examined explicitly.
The following quote couldn’t state more precisely Steiner’s, and for the most part, western
philosophy’s orientation:
“It is well never to lose sight of the fact that, fundamentally, there is nothing in the
universe but consciousness. Everything outside the consciousness of Beings of
whatever order belongs to the realm of Maya, the Great Illusion. . . . If we are to reach
the heights of these mighty cosmic facts, we must rise to a level where we have to do
with states of consciousness only. When attempting to describe the realities, therefore,
we can describe only states of consciousness. . . . in gradual ascent, the eye of
seership rises above the objects and processes of the world around us, to a level
where all these things pass away and melt into nothingness, until finally the region is
attained where Beings alone exist, Beings in certain states of consciousness. The only
true realities of the universe are therefore Beings in different states of consciousness.
It is because we live in the state of human consciousness, and with this consciousness
2
have no complete survey of the realities, that what is not reality appears to us as
though it were.”3
It is interesting how very close Steiner comes to the orientation of Indian, or at least nondualistic Indian spirituality in the above quote if only a part of it is taken. It would read like
this with additions in italics:
It is well never to lose sight of the fact that, fundamentally, there is nothing in the
universe but consciousness. If we are to reach the heights of these mighty cosmic
facts, we must rise to a level where we have to do with states of consciousness only.
[In these states of consciousness , determined by and determining the objects of such
consciousness, we find beings] When attempting to describe the realities, therefore,
we can describe only states of consciousness. [,with all else deriving from these states.
The ultimate reality we must then say is consciousness, pure and simple.]
For the Indian master, consciousness is primary and beings secondary, while for the western
Master, including Rudolf Steiner, beings are primary and these beings possess consciousness.
If a person were to really understand the differences between East and West, they would
need to consider this radical difference in orientation. Even if Rudolf Steiner's words were
read carefully and taken literally, we would come to the same truth. “The only true realities of
the universe are therefore Beings in different states of consciousness.” Even accepting this
as the realities of the universe, we are then still left with the question of the overall reality of
the Universe as opposed to the composition of it. If the realities of the universe are beings in
states of consciousness, then the highest or primal reality of the universe is consciousness.
In addition to orientation, we would have to come to a deeper understanding of “Maya”.
Rudolf Steiner was highly critical of what has become the dominant Indian view, or at least
the view most often expressed. That is the view that maya means illusion and that the world
is maya, illusion. This is expressed most clearly in Advaita (non-dual) Vedanta and it is this
view that Steiner has St. Paul calling “blasphemy” in his lectures on the Bhagavad Gita. 4
“Don’t the Elohim create the world” he has St. Paul saying. In the above lecture from “The
Fifth Gospel”, Steiner refers to “Maya as the Great Illusion” and identifies it as the view which
doesn’t see the beings at the foundation of the world, therefore indicating our ordinary view.
This shows that Steiner does not take exception with the definition of Maya found in Advaita
Vedanta, but only its scope which is much broader than his own. For Vedanta, the hierarchies,
even the Elohim are Maya. For Steiner, the hierarchical beings are not Maya.
In Indian Spirituality, the above meaning of “maya”, is only one of three possible meanings.
The primal meaning, the original meaning, of the Sanskrit word from which “maya” comes is
“measure”. Where or in what sense is there measurement? The highest Indian View sees
consciousness, or awareness, as primal, so it is consciousness, itself, that is measured out – it
is measured out into individualized beings. So what Steiner sees as the fundamental realities
3 “The Fifth Gospel”, 1968, Rudolf Steiner Press, Revised translation by C. Davy and C.S. Osmond, lecture 7
4 “The Occult Significance of the Bhagavad-Gita”, Anthroposophic Press, 1968, translated by Doris M. Bugbey
3
of the Universe, already derives for this Indian view from something even more fundamental.
Considered on a time line for convenience of thought, the process of manifestation is already
“along considerably” when the “beings in differing states of consciousness [for Steiner] arise”.
Steiner says everything has consciousness or is conscious, beings are conscious or possess
consciousness and his occult investigation depends upon this. The non-dualistic Indian view
says everything is consciousness. Not only is it consciousness which is measured out, but it is
consciousness which does the measuring, is the means for measurement. Without grasping
this, we cannot understand more than allegorically the “destructive power” of Shiva, for Shiva
“destroys” by dissolving lower “modes” or forms of consciousness into higher ones. There are
old stories in India about the cataclysmic events as the world enters its phase of dissolution –
mountains crash into the seas, continents fragment, fire consumes all. We can think of this as
the destructive power of Shiva, and it is. But what is it non-allegorically? It is higher
consciousness burning through lower modes.
Steiner speaks of the moon rejoining the earth. This will be an event like the above for
anyone not able to maintain “etheric consciousness”. But whether it can be maintained or not,
the higher consciousness of the gods will burn through the lower forms whether we can
participate and identify with that consciousness or not. When Steiner describes how one day
after perhaps long meditative work, a person will be sitting in their room and the walls will
dissolve, thunder will crack and lightening flash, one will think one is in grave danger, that his
life will soon be forfeit. What is happening? A higher consciousness is breaking in upon one
that the person involved hasn’t quite made his own, whose next task is to make this higher
consciousness his own. The “Shiva Nataraz”, often called the “Dancing Shiva” or the “God of
Dance”, has four arms, the back two, the ones in the spiritual world hold a drum in the right
hand and a flame or bowl of fire in the left. The drum awakens the universe to life, the flame,
the flame of consciousness, dissolves it. The front two arms, in the “natural world”, are held
one to the heart of the devotee, and the other pointing to his own upraised left leg. The one
at the heart says “fear not”, the other “take refuge in me”. In the deepest sense, it is not
Shiva a being that is to be taken refuge in, it is pure unconditioned consciousness as the only
thing that survives total dissolution or the highest pralaya, that is to be taken refuge in.
While the “destructive power” of Shiva is essentially a dissolving of lower forms – thus the
saying “Shiva transcends everything” - at the same time this “dynamic” takes many forms.
The terrorist manifests it in a violent way in his attempts to break down the established order
that he sees as oppressive. On the opposite end of the spectrum is an occultist like Rudolf
Steiner who does it in a gentle way by offering views and concepts that also will eventually
break down older relatively sclerotic views. Rudolf Steiner, in what he sees as a requirement
of evolution, even breaks down the old secretive forms of occultism, itself, in revealing what
was once secret. According to Steiner, Christian Rosencreutz works in such a way to keep
forms, thought forms and forms of experience, from becoming too hardened. Knowingly or
not, these all call upon the “destructive power” of Shiva to break down old forms and they do
it in a way consistent with their own evolutionary state, so they do it in different ways each
having its own “karma”. There is even what might be called a somewhat “enlightened” form
4
of Satanism, if we can speak such, in which all forms are attacked as manifestations of an
“inferior god” as Plato called the Demiurge who creates the world. They would go even
beyond the terrorist, breaking down any “solid ground” upon which the human being stands
in order that the universe return to its “original state” of Khaos. They would destroy the
evolutionary process itself, which is nothing other than the most gentle of all ways to “break
down” the old forms that involution has brought about. So we have to ask the question
whether it is really accurate, to say nothing of fair, to equate Shiva with one type of
“destructiveness”. Would we not have to say that the terrorist manifests Ahriman/Shiva, the
courageous thinker Michael/Shiva, The Christian occultist serving evolution Christ/Shiva? They
are all aspects of the “Non-Dual” Shiva.
Because of this, we must look at the first quote once again. The following part of it, taken on
its own, agrees in essentials with Indian Thought:
“I will now give you first of all the definition of what is meant by human earthly
knowledge. It consists of the blunted impulses of destruction, of Shiva in his most
terrifying aspect, but so blunted that he cannot express them to the full, but himself
has become impoverished, has been reduced to the world of human ideas – this is the
inner maya, the knowledge of man.”
The Indian Esotericist would agree adding a qualification, for they would say that the place,
the mode of consciousness, the “tattva” as they would call it, where Shiva becomes totally
“impoverished”, where He has no more to give, is the element earth and that the “Shiva
Tattva” is the “place” where He remains fully in His own power. The “realm” of intellect is
between the two, “manas” or “buddhi” to them and “spirit self” or “life spirit” to the
Anthroposophist. The qualification the Indian Yogi would add is that they would call this
“Shakti” that manifests as the world of ideas rather than Shiva because they distinguish
between the active and quiescent, Shakti and Shiva. Yet, it is also acceptable to speak as
Steiner does calling it Shiva if it is recalled he is speaking about the dualistic Shiva, “Shiva the
destroyer”. It is acceptable so long as it is not taken as an absolute, as absolutely
representing “Shiva”.
The real problem in the statement comes in the latter sentence which may be a problem of
transcription.
“This knowledge had to be weakened, and equally the impulses and inner forces, in
order that the originally destructive element where Ahriman holds sway – for originally
it was Ahriman who provoked this wish – in order that Ahriman’s power should be so
far emasculated that man should not fall victim to Ahriman and thereby make himself
permanently a servant of Shiva. . . .”
If the last word was “Ahriman” instead of “Shiva” the problem, which should already be
evident from the preceding paragraphs, would not exist. First, however, we have to
5
understand what the “wish” is that is spoken of. In short, it is Cain's wish to kill Abel in the
Paradise Legend which Steiner had shown the occult significance of earlier in the same
lecture. The problem again points back to Steiner's failure to consider the Shiva of dualism vs
the Shiva of non-dualism and so, in a way, to utter a blasphemy to the ears of anyone
“knowing” the “Non-Dual Shiva”. For as has already been pointed out, Steiner, himself, serves
Shiva in breaking down sclerotic thought forms and from that same perspective, Ahriman is a
being or class of beings serving Shiva in a particular way whether the “particular being”
knows it or not.
Most ironically, it must be pointed out that in the end, neither “Lucifer” nor “Ahriman” are
truly understood within Anthroposophical circles beyond their effects and activities within our
solar system. In other words, they are seen in terms of what they are for man and especially
in a negative sense for a human being who becomes unbalanced by either. It is not
understood what they are in and of themselves in a genuine cosmic sense. This points to the
limitations of taking as an absolute, as one's only view, an anthropocentric view.
The most problematic statement of those quoted is the following, problematic because of the
direct equation of Shiva and Ahriman:
“Although the paths followed by black magic are very diverse, the result is always a
kind of alliance with Ahriman, with Shiva.”
While it must be said that there is a kind of quarter truth here, the words quarter truth must
be emphasized. However, some other things belonging to a fuller truth must be taken into the
bargain in saying that it is a kind of quarter truth. One of those things is the realization that
even behind the greatest evil, no matter how deeply hidden, lies the deepest wisdom, in a
way the “omniscience” and “omnipotence” of God. In that sense the quote manifests the
saying, “there is no state which is not Shiva”. The other is that there are all classes of beings,
both “evil” and “good” at all evolutionary levels. The level is characterized, not by their doing
what appears to us as evil or good, but by how consciously and freely they represent that
deepest wisdom which in the end, in activity, manifests as the deepest love.
If we are to supply the other ¾ of the truth, then we have to acknowledge another thing
which some may find hard to acknowledge. Along the Non-Dual line that “there is no state
which is not Shiva”, we have to say that there is no such thing as absolute evil or absolute
good, which needless to say is not the same as “personally” valuing them equally in a dual
world. If we call “Satanism” or “Black Magic” in all of its guises evil, and in a world of polarity
who would argue, then we have to see the “Christian Esoteric Path”, as it is usually
understood, as its polar opposite. One would destroy the evolutionary process, the other
would serve it. This, however, involves an acknowledgment that both exist as polarities so
again are not absolutes. In turn, we are then set on a quest for the that which transcends all
polarities, even the polarity of good and evil. In the highest evolution of Indian Thought, That
is known as “ParamaSiva” or simply “Siva”.
6