Bush, Page 4

While the foregoing discussion essentially exhausts the scriptural usages of the term “Bush(es),” we should not stop there, for once it is seen that it is a metaphor for the Ego or “I Am,” we should consider whether extending that meaning to synonyms or parallels of the literal term “bush” is warranted. For instance, “bush” and “shrub” have the same meaning, and both involve a wood element, so small trees (see “Under the Tree”) also come within the scope of our search, and other passages are given enhanced meaning. (Emphasis mine)

Is 6,13: “And though a tenth remain in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak, whose stump remains standing when it is felled.” The holy seed is its stump.

Jer 17,5-6: (5) Thus says the LORD: “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his arm, whose heart turns away from the LORD. (6) He is like a shrub in the desert, and shall not see any good come. He shall dwell in the parched places of the wilderness, in an uninhabited salt land.”

Mt 13,31-32: (31) Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; (32) it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

To the same general effect are the synoptic parallels in Mk 4,30-32 and Lk 13,18-19, and the meaning may even be extended to

Mt 17,20: “. . . For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.”

Also to its parallel in Lk 17,6.

To understand the warrant for such extensions, consider the nature of a “bush,” shrub, tree, or in fact of any plant. Here all that can be done is simply to point the reader in the direction for further contemplation. The Goethean conception of the “archetypal plant” furnishes an excellent starting point. In this connection, see “Johann Wolfgang von Goethe” in Cognate Writings, Vol. 3, Companions Along The Way as well as Goethean Science (GS) and Goethe’s World View (GWV). One approaches the idea by simply asking the question, What constitutes a plant? If we look at it at any given instant in time, it will differ, just as does any other creature in the physical world to greater or lesser extent, from its state in any other instant of time. Thus, one cannot define a plant solely by describing it as a physical phenomenon analyzed at any one such instant. The plant is described more truthfully if it can be seen in its entire life cycle. But this includes the composite picture at every stage, from seed to sprout to stem to leaf to fruit and back to seed. Indeed, it is helpful to consider the immense spiritual significance of the term “Seed.”³

The eye cannot physically “see” the “archetypal plant.” To “see” it, one must use other methods of “sight.” We can, of course, mentally picture each state, but what is it that we conceptualize when that has been done? We get close, in such case, to the etheric (life) body of the plant. But what we conceptualize at that point is not the etheric body, but what emanates from it, namely, the physical body. Yet it is not what we see with our sensate eyes as, and call in our common language, the physical body. Rather it is the spiritualized physical body discussed later under “Form/Phantom” (cf. also “Formed”). It is the unmineralized and non-densified “pattern” (see Ex 25,9,40; Num 8,4; Acts 7,44; Heb 8,5) shown us on the “Mountain” (see “Mountain,” “High Mountain” and “As Above, So Below”). While the physical body is the human being’s oldest “member” (see I-14), having represented spiritual heat on Old Saturn, its earthly manifestation to the senses is only through its densification and mineralization.

In the human, as also in the animal and plant, when the etheric (or life) body separates from the physical body, the latter reverts to its pure mineral condition (e.g., Jn 8,52-53), losing its “Form,” as we see it with our sensate eyes, and disintegrating. Thus, the etheric body is what “Forms” our earthly physical bodies and causes them to retain their shape and to develop and/or heal. (Recall the application of this principle in “The Nativity,” in the discussion of the virginity of the two Mary’s, particularly the Solomon Mary in Matthew’s Gospel.) Defective etheric bodies generally require more than one life to be healed, but defective physical conditions can be healed by a healthy etheric body. Something of the depth of this matter can be seen in I-37.

The “Form/Phantom” representing the spiritualized physical body is, therefore, close to what we conceptualize when we think of a plant. There is a close connection between it and the etheric body, but the latter is not a Form, for the etheric world is one of constant motion or fluidity. The fluids in our bodies are the earthly counterpart of the etheric world, but one who “sees” in the etheric world perceives motion. When our future organ of perception (associated with manas, or “Manna”) is sufficiently developed, we will be able to perceive the etheric body in the plant or higher kingdoms. (Much in the Charts & Tabulations is helpful here, as, for instance, I-9 through I-14.) Goethe appears to have been the harbinger of this, but his vision was limited, while that of Steiner, the prophet, went far beyond. It is only that humanity has such limited scope (see Abbott’s Flatland [FLd]) that it has given him thus far the treatment accorded true prophets (Mt 5,12; Lk 6,23; Mt 23,37; Lk 13,34; Mt 23,34).

When one begins to see the nature of the various kingdoms in the light of anthroposophy, then even such terms as “Grass” can be seen to carry deep meaning beyond that otherwise apparent. The Bible can hardly convey its deeper meaning without these understandings. The literal language is simply part of the “hiding” process, the “occult” vehicle, inherent in its elaboration.

We teach children the ancient Greek myths, for instance, the myth of Prometheus. Why do so many in our materialistic time not accept that the Mosaic account from the same historical period, or even earlier, likewise expresses its truths in myth and allegory? When we get to spiritual adulthood, should we not “give up [these mere] childish ways” (1 Cor 13,11; see also “Milk,” “Simple” and “Simple rather than Wise;” consider also Paul’s instruction in Gal 4 and 1 Cor 10,1-4, and the discussion of Philo in “Egypt” below.) In the transition from the Chaldo-Egyptian Cultural Era, which our own Era mirrors (see I-24 and I-25), to the critical and intervening Greco-Roman, something of the same thing was said by the Egyptian priest to Solon: “O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. . . . Those genealogies of yours . . . are no better than the tales of children [for among other things] you remember a single deluge only....” (Timaeus; see “Plato” in Cognate Writings, Vol. 3). Is it not time to come, with anthroposophical (see I-65) light, into an understanding of the Biblical message, given us in the form of holy myth, for spiritual adulthood in our Age?