Dan, did you notice a symbol in the center of the two
triangles? d

Dan:
> As I started to leave these 14 verses flood in my
> soul, early in the
> mornings, for the first I notticed this rythm:
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
> toward God, and God
> was what the Word was."
> A beautifull imagination of a triangle pointed up,
> arose, completed
> with the one pointed down in the:
> "It was with God in the beginning.  All things
> happened through it,
> and not the one thing that has happened, happened
> without it."
> A light genesis may be brought when you gently
> approach the Sign of
> the Sun Logos, the Solomon Seal, with the inner
> meditation of the:
> "Within Word there was Life, and the Life was the
> light of the
> world.  And in the darkness the light was shining,
> and the darkness
> never got hold of it."
>
> No wonder that over the ages, darkness fought light,
> culminating
> with the signing the Jews, in an desperate Nazi
> battle with
> something that they didn't understood that holds the
> future - Light.
>
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel
> Wendt
> <hermit@...> wrote:
> >
> > begin, after creating an appropriate mood, with
> the first 14
> verses of
> > the John Gospel...
> >
> > "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
> toward God, and
> God was
> > what the Word was.  It was with God in the
> beginning.  All things
> > happened through it, and not the one thing that
> has happened,
> happened
> > without it.   Within it there was Life, and the
> Lifefwas the light
> of
> > the world.  And in the darkness the light was
> shining, and the
> darkness
> > never got hold of it.
> >
> > "There was a person sent from God, and he had the
> name John.  He
> came as
> > a witness to testify about the light, so that all
> could have faith
> > through him.  He wasn't the light himself, he was
> to testify about
> the
> > light.
> >
> > "The light was the true light that comes into the
> world and shines
> for
> > every human being.  He was in the world, and the
> world was created
> by
> > him, and the world didn't know him.  He came to
> his own kind, and
> his
> > own kind wouldn't accept him.  But to those who
> did accept him he
> gave
> > the right to become children of God if they had
> faith in his name,
> they
> > who were born not of the blood, nor of the flesh's
> will, nor a
> man's
> > will, but of God.
> >
> > "And the Word turned flesh and lodged among us,
> and we witnessed
> his
> > glory, the kind of glory a father gives his only
> son, full of
> grace and
> > truth."
> >
> > Now imagine, that hidden within this unfolding of
> ideas out of the
> > Gospel of John there also lies, as regards our
> present day
> > consciousness, a gesture that goes from "spirit
> recollection",
> through
> > "spirit mindfulness" to spirit vision" (as in the
> Foundation Stone
> > Meditation).
> >
> > "In the beginning..." - we practice spirit
> recollection.
> > "He came as a witness to testify about the
> light..." we practice
> spirit
> > mindfulness.
> > Then we become children of God and "we witness
> [ed] his glory" -
> and
> > then we practice spirit vision.
> >
> > If we learn this verse and recite it during
> meditation, at the
> same time
> > shining willed light into the  inner darkness,
> that is we make
> light
> > within the soul out of our own will, making an
> image of a sun
> being born
> > above that point of awareness where vision
> normally appears when
> the
> > eyes are open (this is crucial) - the point of
> awareness where we
> make
> > the light is where we would behold an idea when
> thinking.   This
> lays
> > the ground for a current of willed light to run
> from the back of
> the
> > head through the pineal gland into ethereal space
> (where we behold
> ideas
> > when we truly think).
> >
> > This willed light then "participates" in the
> Second Coming, an
> event
> > which is not of the past (although it appears in
> the time stream
> between
> > 1933 and 1945).   This "event" is essentially
> timeless - this is
> in the
> > Eternal Present, and we contribute to it our will
> forces and moral
> > forces (recall above where I spoke of created mood
> of soul).
> >
> > Ben-Aharon's The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
> Century suggests
> that
> > this effort will reach a stage where our willed
> light begins to be
> met
> > by the light of all others (including Christ) who
> make this light
> out of
> > love, and the inner sun begins to shine not only
> out of our light
> (which
> > is necessary for us to "see" it), but also on its
> own.
> >
> > This is a very delicate art.  But I have had the
> experience of
> glimpses,
> > moments in which both lights are present - my
> light and
> the "other"
> > light.  This can be exciting and scary, and the
> mood shifts and
> the
> > "other light" and even our own willed light
> disappear, because the
> > concentration (without effort) skill is not yet
> fully developed.
> >
> > This means not to expect too much, just to
> practice it.  To offer
> a
> > contribution out of our own will and love to the
> Ethereal Return
> of
> > Christ, with no expectation that a certain result
> will appear.  We
> > contribute our light and love selflessly - a gift,
> and leave the
> rest to
> > that time in which we are truly ready.
> >
> > Dottie's recollection of Dennis's exercise about
> the square and
> not
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

holderlin wrote:

"Steiner's Luna is a
character or an emancipated spiritual quality that brings about the
capacity of the will to determine what it will throw its weight
behind and for what highly discerned purpose and inner clarity,
generated from the core of the Conscious or Knowing Doer."

Bradford comments;

Steiner thought the POF could be done in Eurythmy and raised up to
an Art, but we haven't seemed to grasp that Maria, as a Knowing
Doer, from the position of her I AM examines the tri-layered,
thoughts, feelings and impulses of her will. Trifecta winning spree
does not happen by accident. Nor does the call to be in the Michael
School happen by accident.

"TRI" meaning three, indicates that the bettor must pick the first
three finishers of a race in the EXACT order.
PICK THREE When you place a PICK THREE bet, you must pick the
winners of three races in a row to win.
PICK SEVEN Although more difficult than a PICK THREE, challenge your
ability to read the facts and pick the winners of seven consecutive
races."

The POF appears operative in Maria in the fact that she represents a
Knowing Doer. A Knowing Doer in training. A Knowing Doer on the
initiation path. Platonism is defined and Capesius suffers from the
willowing, billowing, inflated errors that Platonism always suffers
from. Those of us on this list should take heed to Platonisms errors
for they fit us like a glove.

Strader wrestles with the Tesla and Science terminology or deep
Ahrimanic equations, factory management etc. And guess what, the
woman who has the Etheric Christ experience, Theodora and Strader
kind of find a relationship,

"....what is shown in The Souls' Awakening and what I have said here
about Ahriman as the Lord of Death in the world. Beginning with
Scene Three this appears clearly, but it was already hinted at in
Scene One with the words Strader says to the Business Manager, "And
yet will come what has to come about." The Manager hears in these
few words something like a gentle whisper from the spiritual world;
it gives rise to the beginning of his spiritual discipleship. There
it is more or less hinted at, but gradually, from Scene Three
onwards, we see more and more clearly how the moods and forces
preparing the death of Strader are coming closer. We shall not
understand why Theodora appears and tells Strader what she will do
for him in the spirit-land, unless we get the feeling — though a
somewhat vague one, as it has to be at this point — that something
important can be expected. In the same scene, we shall not perceive
rightly what Benedictus means when he describes his clairvoyance as
being impaired unless we can feel how the forces of Strader's
approaching death are influencing this clairvoyance. In Scene
Eleven, a simple, straightforward but very significant scene, we
shall not get the right impression of the dialogue between
Benedictus and Strader unless we connect Strader's visionary picture
with his presentiment that everything he is using to strengthen his
soul will turn its destructive, power at some time on himself;
unless, too, we connect this with the repetition of Benedictus's
speech about his spirit vision being impaired, so that we have a
premonition of what is looming ahead. The mood of the approaching
death of Strader is diffused over the whole, development of even the
other persons in this play from Scene Three onwards. When you bring
this together with what has been said about Ahriman as the Lord of
Death, you will enter more and more deeply into knowledge that leads
to the mysteries of the spirit, especially by considering also how
Ahriman takes a hand in the mood of the drama, which is dominated by
Strader's death impulse.

"Again, the last meeting of Benedictus and Strader, a meeting
intended to be of real significance towards the end of the drama, as
well as the final monologue of Benedictus, cannot be understood
unless we bear in mind both the rightful and the unlawful
interference of Ahriman in the world of the human soul and in the
Word of cosmic realms. These things were not intended merely to pass
through your minds, but in order for you to immerse yourselves more
and more deeply in them."

http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19130831p01.html

Bradford concludes;

Souls drawn to the Michael School seek detailed schooling, not
instinctive schooling, not partial schooling. Souls drawn to the
Michael School are swimming in the conscious substance of the
details of the Etheric Christ, that lifts plant and etheric
insights, grasps butterflies, creates a space for children for bio-
dynamics and World Economy, and penetrates Ahrimanic forces with the
little and developing light of an active I AM.

The longing for instinctive soul experience and a path where dimming
of the I AM can serve the awakening of and a craving for a Theodora
experience, is why her experience, near the Threshold, is not the
emphasis of Michael Schooling training and Grail companionship. The
emphasis of Michael Schooling is to have active souls who are
carrying the Michael Impulse and represent the thinking, the
feeling, the willing and the stream of the Etheric Christ down to
science and up to cultural and Platonic observations that are
unconscious to the general stream of humanity.

At some point the sriving student realizes that they have before
them a treasure that others can only dream about. UNDERSTANDING.
They signed onto the Michael School because they could help carry
and explore the vast details and wonders of all that makes up the
Science of the Soul and the depth of the Christ Experience and
through all the various systems of Spiritual Science, influence
education, art, science and world economy to carry in detail the
vast Etheric Body that represents the wide illuminating aura of the
Etheric Christ Being and his working with Michael Intelligence in
our world. That is one way to phrase what one signs on for when one
signs on with the Michael School.

Joel:
> Further, it was all connected to choices I was
> already making.  I was
> never redirected in anyway, as if given a task or a
> mission.  I was
> helped to be me, as I labored to unfold "Not I, but
> Christ in me".

Yeah, that's the point isn't it? I mean it's like
returning to the fold. It's the point that moves from
the I Am to We are. We may not be there but we can
know where we are going.

And for me it's not that I've been given a task,
rather I am aware of my own task in relations to the
Christ. And as I am still human I mess up all the time
and am not perfect. But its this not being perfect
that somehow keeps me so frieken humble that I am
grateful in a strange way. For me it is almost the
gift I am given in that I have to sin in order for me
to be close to Christ. I know that sounds strange but
for me at this stage of my growing it really is what
keeps my feet firmly grounded in what I say or share.

I am wondering Joel if you have seen Him in the Light
or if it was through feeling. Not that one is better
than the other as they all move us to higher ground or
deeper ground, but I am wondering if you have seen Him
in the phantom body. I say phantom in place of spirit
body as I don't know what others pictures are of a
'spirit' body.

Best,
Dottie

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Joel Wendt wrote:

"I'm still uncertain as to what you consider your "status". Are you an
initiate of this new path, via your personal variation? If you answer
yes, are you then clairvoyant?"

Bradford comments;

There are no illegal questions, but this, this, this type of question
represents the full failure of freedom, intuition and insight and
seeks to punch holes in someone. The shear subjective soul instincts
that arise within this particular stance, repeatedly, and repeatedly
and repeatedly, reveal a very, very warped thinking.

I don't think so Bradford. I think if it was someone
who did not work along side of the things you are
working along side you would have been even sharper
tongued than what has been offered in question form.

These questions are not attacks, rather I they are to
get Stephen to share a little bit, I mean just a
little, of his process. You can't make pronouncments
in facts without having other question how you came to
this. I mean you are the biggest sticker on this
subject. Why not let Stephen answer his questions
without you doing this war dance on his behalf. You
serve him not an iota. Let him think to find a way to
share with us how he is coming to things.

I can say for me I am not looking to judge how he came
to a thing I am just wanting to know. You are the one
who is making this into some hanging board or
something. And it seems to me that is not the place I
nor Joel are coming from. Let Stephen take our
questions in trust and get your big ol butt out of the
way. It's just creating this false picture of why
these questions are being asked. Stephen can have
trust that I am asking because I want to follow him
and see how he found a thing and what it's importance
is.

Best,
Dottie

--- holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:

> Joel Wendt wrote:
>
> "I'm still uncertain as to what you consider your
> "status". Are you an
> initiate of this new path, via your personal
> variation? If you answer
> yes, are you then clairvoyant?"
>
> Bradford comments;
>
> There are no illegal questions, but this, this, this
> type of question
> represents the full failure of freedom, intuition
> and insight and
> seeks to punch holes in someone. The shear
> subjective soul instincts
> that arise within this particular stance,
> repeatedly, and repeatedly
> and repeatedly, reveal a very, very warped thinking.
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Even if they are cloaked and hided behind, the questions are in fact
the same :

"At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief
priests and teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led
before them.
"If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."



--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> I don't think so Bradford. I think if it was someone
> who did not work along side of the things you are
> working along side you would have been even sharper
> tongued than what has been offered in question form.
>
> These questions are not attacks, rather I they are to
> get Stephen to share a little bit, I mean just a
> little, of his process. You can't make pronouncments
> in facts without having other question how you came to
> this. I mean you are the biggest sticker on this
> subject. Why not let Stephen answer his questions
> without you doing this war dance on his behalf. You
> serve him not an iota. Let him think to find a way to
> share with us how he is coming to things.
>
> I can say for me I am not looking to judge how he came
> to a thing I am just wanting to know. You are the one
> who is making this into some hanging board or
> something. And it seems to me that is not the place I
> nor Joel are coming from. Let Stephen take our
> questions in trust and get your big ol butt out of the
> way. It's just creating this false picture of why
> these questions are being asked. Stephen can have
> trust that I am asking because I want to follow him
> and see how he found a thing and what it's importance
> is.
>
> Best,
> Dottie
>
> --- holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:
>
> > Joel Wendt wrote:
> >
> > "I'm still uncertain as to what you consider your
> > "status". Are you an
> > initiate of this new path, via your personal
> > variation? If you answer
> > yes, are you then clairvoyant?"
> >
> > Bradford comments;
> >
> > There are no illegal questions, but this, this, this
> > type of question
> > represents the full failure of freedom, intuition
> > and insight and
> > seeks to punch holes in someone. The shear
> > subjective soul instincts
> > that arise within this particular stance,
> > repeatedly, and repeatedly
> > and repeatedly, reveal a very, very warped thinking.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

Although I have been following this list intermittantly for the past couple of
weeks
-- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will attest -- I thought the
following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the discussion:

   "I often think that self-development is essentially a materialistic
    false goal, masquerading as something supposedly spiritual."

Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
JoAnn








~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
*****Cheney delenda est!*****

I think that's what for me has been coming up in
regards to why someone would try to have the Christ
experience. I mean its like unto what are you working?
It seems you work for Christ and in that the gifts
come along with the study. I love the Steiner saying
in How To Know Higher Worlds: you don't do something
because you will get something rather you do it
because it is the right thing to do.

Best
Dottie


> Although I have been following this list
> intermittantly for the past couple of weeks
> -- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will
> attest -- I thought the
> following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the
> discussion:
>
>   "I often think that self-development is
> essentially a materialistic
>    false goal, masquerading as something supposedly
> spiritual."
>
> Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
> JoAnn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> *****Cheney delenda est!*****
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

"You are the one
  who is making this into some hanging board or
  something."

Bradford comments;

Intimate, private, holy, there is plenty in me that looks upon how
these statements and others are formulated that causes me to pause
and consider, if right now at this moment, if the world stopped and
Dottie or Joel were in charge of the universe, what peculiar
mandates would come down from on high. There is a reason Christ was
dragged over to Herod first. Herod had a highly inflated, Luciferic
spiritual hunger for wanting to be the best. It just might be a
matter of pride, after seeing the advantages of so called best to
seek rather to be the worst. The roughest rose, in the King;s
Garden. I know many, many souls who took one look at the goodie,
goodie nature of what any common Jihad fundamentalists would do or
say, "have you taken Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?" Have you
been born again brother? Well there is a quality of quiet, IMO that
still is digesting the depths of certain experiences. Now I also
agree with Dottie that bringing Michael School Intelligence out into
the open, should be all guns loaded.

But I have a very, very cautious sense about the opinions fostered,
A.) by Marie Steiner and B.) by some of the hanging Waldorf Boards
who didn't support certain people and made other people scapegoats.
In fact Anthros, unconscious, undeveloped Anthros, are the very
worst, most sneaking, lying, manipulative bunch, that I know. Aside
from the fact that behavior like this arises everywhere. Somehow you
expect it in the so called regular world.

It is here where I don't respect a soul who starts brow beating
someone who threw out a curse word. What hypocrisy, I curse all the
time. But my spirit is still aimed at the mark. This is where I am
glad Tarjei has made a list where we can hear the most wide ranging
opinions and be the most honest with ourselves. So for my two cents,
there are numerous phrases and methods of saying something that give
me the jitters. I really feel that Christ Justice and clear
understanding, isn't mine certainly and I have extreme caution when
I imagine certain friends of the Michael School nestling into a
comfortable vision of knowing how a Christ experience should make
anyone feel. Things like what I hear below, gives me the jitters. It
feels twenty paces away from the collective and the uncomfortable
experience that Winston Smith was led to when he felt he couldn't
hoot and holler with the congregation of We.

Dottie brought;

"I think one can begin to know of those who speak of
seeing and those who have seen and I think it comes
down to what their lives are dedicated to. Are they
coming forth with pronouncements of what God wants
them to do or with pronouncements of Jesus wants me to
share with you or Steiner wants me to share with
you..... I mean those kinds of pronouncements seem to
be so not what I experience as what happens when one
does experience the Christ. The only thing that
happens is that we become closer to the Christ and we
take on His yoke to the best of our ability. "

dottie zold wrote:

" I can say for me I am not looking to judge how he came
  to a thing I am just wanting to know. You are the one
  who is making this into some hanging board or
  something. And it seems to me that is not the place I
  nor Joel are coming from. "

Oh Dan, I disagree with you if you are implying that I
am asking from a place that is looking to catch him in
something. I am asking in purety. It might be a little
tight but I think that comes with the teritorry when
one presents things as facts. Stephen and I have
debated the role of Peter and Mary Magdalene and very
much disagree with his understanding of the Magdalene.
And from day one I have always asked him to please
share with me how he comes to his understandings. I
mean that is the place we can look at where other
questions will come up as well. I mean isn't that what
scientists do Dan? Don't they keep looking and asking
and discerning and finding and throwing away and so
forth?

The days of being silent like that are in the past I
believe if you are one who is presenting new thoughts
or 'facts'. I think one has to be able to stand on
what they say and be able to at least try to show how
they have come to a thing. Saying its creative
activity really isn't saying all that much when there
is so much open to interpretation of that. And if
Stephen is a teacher then he would need to be able to
show how this can be found versus just him finding it
and the rest of us nodding our heads.

All good things,
Dottie

--- nadmateescu <nadmateescu@...> wrote:

> Even if they are cloaked and hided behind, the
> questions are in fact
> the same :
>
> "At daybreak the council of the elders of the
> people, both the chief
> priests and teachers of the law, met together, and
> Jesus was led
> before them.
> "If you are the Christ," they said, "tell us."
>
>
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
> dottie zold
> <dottie_z@...> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think so Bradford. I think if it was
> someone
> > who did not work along side of the things you are
> > working along side you would have been even
> sharper
> > tongued than what has been offered in question
> form.
> >
> > These questions are not attacks, rather I they are
> to
> > get Stephen to share a little bit, I mean just a
> > little, of his process. You can't make
> pronouncments
> > in facts without having other question how you
> came to
> > this. I mean you are the biggest sticker on this
> > subject. Why not let Stephen answer his questions
> > without you doing this war dance on his behalf.
> You
> > serve him not an iota. Let him think to find a way
> to
> > share with us how he is coming to things.
> >
> > I can say for me I am not looking to judge how he
> came
> > to a thing I am just wanting to know. You are the
> one
> > who is making this into some hanging board or
> > something. And it seems to me that is not the
> place I
> > nor Joel are coming from. Let Stephen take our
> > questions in trust and get your big ol butt out of
> the
> > way. It's just creating this false picture of why
> > these questions are being asked. Stephen can have
> > trust that I am asking because I want to follow
> him
> > and see how he found a thing and what it's
> importance
> > is.
> >
> > Best,
> > Dottie
> >
> > --- holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Joel Wendt wrote:
> > >
> > > "I'm still uncertain as to what you consider
> your
> > > "status". Are you an
> > > initiate of this new path, via your personal
> > > variation? If you answer
> > > yes, are you then clairvoyant?"
> > >
> > > Bradford comments;
> > >
> > > There are no illegal questions, but this, this,
> this
> > > type of question
> > > represents the full failure of freedom,
> intuition
> > > and insight and
> > > seeks to punch holes in someone. The shear
> > > subjective soul instincts
> > > that arise within this particular stance,
> > > repeatedly, and repeatedly
> > > and repeatedly, reveal a very, very warped
> thinking.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

You know Bradford, someone just emailed me off list
and made a comment about how I thank you for the
cutting you have done towards my person. And the
thought was that it could continue that kind of
behaviour from you versus you looking at how you
actually go about cutting others.

And so I want to be very very clear, although I am
grateful for the experience of you cutting me through
and through I also am aware that it doesn't have to
come this way. I am aware that you get caught with the
bad end of the stick and I just know to grow from what
has transpired. You've been clubbing me for about
seven years now and I've done nothing but grow from
it. And for that I am so thankful. I am not thankful
that you clubbed me nor that you continue to rather
that I am able to learn something from it. You on the
other hand continue to do the same shit over and over.
But that's on you. You pick your pet favorites which
you've been doing since I've known you and you chop
everyone else down. You do this whole ignorant game of
whos in and whos out. That's for children. Now,
Stephen is a favorite of yours and so you feel the
need to chop everyone else down with a blind eye and
ear instead of listening that others are asking
regular questions.

Best,
Dottie





--- holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:

> "You are the one
>  who is making this into some hanging board or
>  something."
>
> Bradford comments;
>
> Intimate, private, holy, there is plenty in me that
> looks upon how
> these statements and others are formulated that
> causes me to pause
> and consider, if right now at this moment, if the
> world stopped and
> Dottie or Joel were in charge of the universe, what
> peculiar
> mandates would come down from on high. There is a
> reason Christ was
> dragged over to Herod first. Herod had a highly
> inflated, Luciferic
> spiritual hunger for wanting to be the best. It just
> might be a
> matter of pride, after seeing the advantages of so
> called best to
> seek rather to be the worst. The roughest rose, in
> the King;s
> Garden. I know many, many souls who took one look at
> the goodie,
> goodie nature of what any common Jihad
> fundamentalists would do or
> say, "have you taken Jesus Christ as your Lord and
> Savior?" Have you
> been born again brother? Well there is a quality of
> quiet, IMO that
> still is digesting the depths of certain
> experiences. Now I also
> agree with Dottie that bringing Michael School
> Intelligence out into
> the open, should be all guns loaded.
>
> But I have a very, very cautious sense about the
> opinions fostered,
> A.) by Marie Steiner and B.) by some of the hanging
> Waldorf Boards
> who didn't support certain people and made other
> people scapegoats.
> In fact Anthros, unconscious, undeveloped Anthros,
> are the very
> worst, most sneaking, lying, manipulative bunch,
> that I know. Aside
> from the fact that behavior like this arises
> everywhere. Somehow you
> expect it in the so called regular world.
>
> It is here where I don't respect a soul who starts
> brow beating
> someone who threw out a curse word. What hypocrisy,
> I curse all the
> time. But my spirit is still aimed at the mark. This
> is where I am
> glad Tarjei has made a list where we can hear the
> most wide ranging
> opinions and be the most honest with ourselves. So
> for my two cents,
> there are numerous phrases and methods of saying
> something that give
> me the jitters. I really feel that Christ Justice
> and clear
> understanding, isn't mine certainly and I have
> extreme caution when
> I imagine certain friends of the Michael School
> nestling into a
> comfortable vision of knowing how a Christ
> experience should make
> anyone feel. Things like what I hear below, gives me
> the jitters. It
> feels twenty paces away from the collective and the
> uncomfortable
> experience that Winston Smith was led to when he
> felt he couldn't
> hoot and holler with the congregation of We.
>
> Dottie brought;
>
> "I think one can begin to know of those who speak of
> seeing and those who have seen and I think it comes
> down to what their lives are dedicated to. Are they
> coming forth with pronouncements of what God wants
> them to do or with pronouncements of Jesus wants me
> to
> share with you or Steiner wants me to share with
> you..... I mean those kinds of pronouncements seem
> to
> be so not what I experience as what happens when one
> does experience the Christ. The only thing that
> happens is that we become closer to the Christ and
> we
> take on His yoke to the best of our ability. "
>
> dottie zold wrote:
>
> " I can say for me I am not looking to judge how he
> came
>  to a thing I am just wanting to know. You are the
> one
>  who is making this into some hanging board or
>  something. And it seems to me that is not the place
> I
>  nor Joel are coming from. "
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Dottie,
You paint a false picture time and time again.  And you can be
persuasive and influential in how you speak, and convey that I don't
draw from facts and experience, and have taken pains to give those
indications as part of the information I try to express.  I have
taken particular time and effort to expand on the facts of Peter,
and any cursory effort to look into the archives will prove that I
take the time to back myself up.  But, you have this single-
mindedness and fixed thinking on the Magdalene story that has grown
to such proportions that now there exists a great tripartite Mary
that serves to anchor the so-called Being Anthroposophia.  Thus, a
new triple-headed icon for the worship of the anthrosophia she-
being.  Just great, and how progressive.  At least, on your watch,
and agenda.

Now, if I was a teacher, you'd be the one getting the assignments in
response to your questions, and the first one would be: read this
all over again, slowly and carefully.  But, since I'm not, and it's
just free information that you treat with your typical annoyance and
demand for immediate answers to what you have no clue about, I'll
let you receive and have it in your way; in the manner of something
that cannot be proved or expanded upon, or clarified in any way that
would conveniently suit you.  It is a difficult subject, and like
Joel you've prejudged it already without reading any more than a few
words.  Then the questions start.  But, if I sense lack of goodwill
on your part, and Joel's, then why should I even write this much of
a response?

Steve

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Dan, I disagree with you if you are implying that I
> am asking from a place that is looking to catch him in
> something. I am asking in purety. It might be a little
> tight but I think that comes with the teritorry when
> one presents things as facts. Stephen and I have
> debated the role of Peter and Mary Magdalene and very
> much disagree with his understanding of the Magdalene.
> And from day one I have always asked him to please
> share with me how he comes to his understandings. I
> mean that is the place we can look at where other
> questions will come up as well. I mean isn't that what
> scientists do Dan? Don't they keep looking and asking
> and discerning and finding and throwing away and so
> forth?
>
> The days of being silent like that are in the past I
> believe if you are one who is presenting new thoughts
> or 'facts'. I think one has to be able to stand on
> what they say and be able to at least try to show how
> they have come to a thing. Saying its creative
> activity really isn't saying all that much when there
> is so much open to interpretation of that. And if
> Stephen is a teacher then he would need to be able to
> show how this can be found versus just him finding it
> and the rest of us nodding our heads.
>
> All good things,
> Dottie

Stephen, I am not painting any false picture. I am
asking you to share with us how you come to a thing. I
mean really Stephen, is this too much to ask?

You come back to the Peter Magdalene theme and this
takes us completely off of what this conversation is
about. It is about sharing how you come to a thing. It
is not enough to just say it Stephen. I trust there
must be some experience or some inspiration or some
words that led to the thinking you have. I would like
to know of this so I can better understand what you
are talking about.

I get there are different ways of seeing or finding a
thing. And there is the Platonist stream and the
Aristotelean stream. So, in that they come to marry
one another within each person if they so look, I
would like to know from whence you speak? And you
continue to do this frieken dance instead of answer or
share your findings in a way that can be seen. This is
really getting tiring at this point because its just
me asking the same question over and over. I guess I
should just take that to mean that you are not going
to share that with us. Okay.

Take Care,
Dottie




--- Steve Hale <sardisian01@...> wrote:

> Dottie,
> You paint a false picture time and time again.  And
> you can be
> persuasive and influential in how you speak, and
> convey that I don't
> draw from facts and experience, and have taken pains
> to give those
> indications as part of the information I try to
> express.  I have
> taken particular time and effort to expand on the
> facts of Peter,
> and any cursory effort to look into the archives
> will prove that I
> take the time to back myself up.  But, you have this
> single-
> mindedness and fixed thinking on the Magdalene story
> that has grown
> to such proportions that now there exists a great
> tripartite Mary
> that serves to anchor the so-called Being
> Anthroposophia.  Thus, a
> new triple-headed icon for the worship of the
> anthrosophia she-
> being.  Just great, and how progressive.  At least,
> on your watch,
> and agenda.
>
> Now, if I was a teacher, you'd be the one getting
> the assignments in
> response to your questions, and the first one would
> be: read this
> all over again, slowly and carefully.  But, since
> I'm not, and it's
> just free information that you treat with your
> typical annoyance and
> demand for immediate answers to what you have no
> clue about, I'll
> let you receive and have it in your way; in the
> manner of something
> that cannot be proved or expanded upon, or clarified
> in any way that
> would conveniently suit you.  It is a difficult
> subject, and like
> Joel you've prejudged it already without reading any
> more than a few
> words.  Then the questions start.  But, if I sense
> lack of goodwill
> on your part, and Joel's, then why should I even
> write this much of
> a response?
>
> Steve
>
> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
> dottie zold
> <dottie_z@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh Dan, I disagree with you if you are implying
> that I
> > am asking from a place that is looking to catch
> him in
> > something. I am asking in purety. It might be a
> little
> > tight but I think that comes with the teritorry
> when
> > one presents things as facts. Stephen and I have
> > debated the role of Peter and Mary Magdalene and
> very
> > much disagree with his understanding of the
> Magdalene.
> > And from day one I have always asked him to please
> > share with me how he comes to his understandings.
> I
> > mean that is the place we can look at where other
> > questions will come up as well. I mean isn't that
> what
> > scientists do Dan? Don't they keep looking and
> asking
> > and discerning and finding and throwing away and
> so
> > forth?
> >
> > The days of being silent like that are in the past
> I
> > believe if you are one who is presenting new
> thoughts
> > or 'facts'. I think one has to be able to stand on
> > what they say and be able to at least try to show
> how
> > they have come to a thing. Saying its creative
> > activity really isn't saying all that much when
> there
> > is so much open to interpretation of that. And if
> > Stephen is a teacher then he would need to be able
> to
> > show how this can be found versus just him finding
> it
> > and the rest of us nodding our heads.
> >
> > All good things,
> > Dottie
>
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Dottie asked:

"I am wondering Joel if you have seen Him in the Light or if it was
through feeling. Not that one is better than the other as they all move
us to higher ground or deeper ground, but I am wondering if you have
seen Him in the phantom body. I say phantom in place of spirit body as I
don't know what others pictures are of a 'spirit' body."

     In my first experience in 1971, late Fall I believe, at which time I
was comforted.  In a deep depression I had wandered the streets for
several hours unable to think,  then I finally climbed a hill, sat on a
rock and prayed.  In an instance the depression was gone, and not only
that the conflict which disabled me remained, but I just wasn't
gridlocked in my soul any more.   I had this deep freedom, plus I knew
that either way I choose to act, it would turn out all right.  I just
had to choose.

     My second, in 1986, was fully little being within Cosmic Being, that
is Intuition, but not by effort however - only by Grace.  I was taken
within Him, by Christ, as he descended into the Mass, by which he showed
me how it was that these two were united in every Mass, - the fallen
earthly Church, with the Heavenly True Church (and also, that this was
the archetype for all "wherever two or more are gathered in my name,
there I am".  Great peace followed this experience.

     The third was just before a Mass, in 1991, while I was at prayer.  I
was able, just for an instance, to open myself in the right way, and He
shared His Love, directly with me.  This filled my whole consciousness -
soul and i-AM - I was one with Cosmic Love.  Words do not do justice to
this, can't do justice to this.  Then It was gone, and the sad tragic
thing was it was I who closed the door.  I opened the door, and It was
too much, so I closed it again.  I wasn't ready.

     If you read Steiner in the right places, you will find him
suggesting that we are changed by these experiences.   These experiences
go so deep we become different in ways that can't be described or
imagined, but which only appear over time in new capacities.  I am
healed and more able to be what lies latent in us all.

warm regards,
joel

Always have to consider the source, R. J. Stewart teaches magic and
stuff.  Here is that odd fellow from 2000 years ago:

Woe to you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for cleaning off the
rim of your cup and saucer while on the inside you're bursting with
greed and wild appetites.  Blind Pharisee, wash out the inside of the
cup and saucer first, if you want the outside to end up clean!  Woe to
you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for being like dusty
monuments that look pretty on the outside but on the inside are full of
the bones of corpses and all kinds of rot.  You likewise from the
outside appear to the world to be decent, but inside you're full of
hypocrisy and ways around the law. Matthew 23: 25-28

I wonder what He was talking about, if not self-development?  Care to
share Jo Ann?

warm regards,
joel


Jo Ann Schwartz wrote:

> Although I have been following this list intermittantly for the past
> couple of weeks
> -- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will attest -- I
> thought the
> following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the discussion:
>
> "I often think that self-development is essentially a materialistic
> false goal, masquerading as something supposedly spiritual."
>
> Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
> JoAnn
>
> ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> *****Cheney delenda est!*****
>
>

warp speed, Sulu, warp speed....

j.

p.s.  by the way, Bradford, do you claim clarivoyance or initiation?
And, to repeat myself ad nauseum: if this is Science that we do, then
critical thinking about methods is crucial, otherwise it simply isn't
science, however you want to warp it.

holderlin66 wrote:

> Joel Wendt wrote:
>
> "I'm still uncertain as to what you consider your "status". Are you an
> initiate of this new path, via your personal variation? If you answer
> yes, are you then clairvoyant?"
>
> Bradford comments;
>
> There are no illegal questions, but this, this, this type of question
> represents the full failure of freedom, intuition and insight and
> seeks to punch holes in someone. The shear subjective soul instincts
> that arise within this particular stance, repeatedly, and repeatedly
> and repeatedly, reveal a very, very warped thinking.
>
>

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen, I am not painting any false picture. I am
> asking you to share with us how you come to a thing. I
> mean really Stephen, is this too much to ask?

Yes it is, coming from someone who doesn't listen, read, or make the
remotest effort to even try a little to draw in something from
outside herself.  You have not one iota of understanding.  Your
obtuseness makes me wonder how I could even begin to proceed; not to
mention not wanting to even try considering that you are filled with
Jewish-style questions of doubt designed to lead to other questions,
ad infinitum.  But hey, questions, that's your big thing today.
>
> You come back to the Peter Magdalene theme and this
> takes us completely off of what this conversation is
> about. It is about sharing how you come to a thing. It
> is not enough to just say it Stephen. I trust there
> must be some experience or some inspiration or some
> words that led to the thinking you have. I would like
> to know of this so I can better understand what you
> are talking about.

The Peter/Magdalene theme comes from you, with this:

"Oh Dan, I disagree with you if you are implying that I
am asking from a place that is looking to catch him in
something. I am asking in purety. It might be a little
tight but I think that comes with the teritorry when
one presents things as facts. Stephen and I have
debated the role of Peter and Mary Magdalene and very
much disagree with his understanding of the Magdalene.
And from day one I have always asked him to please
share with me how he comes to his understandings."

Asking in purity, my ass.  That's why I wrote what I wrote.  And my
experience of what forms the basis of the Etheric Christ has been
documented here a number of times, but you don't listen, read, or
comprehend.  So, what more can I say.  Well, this:  your sensing
into things is a product of your fictitious mind and its phoney
spirituality.  Try just living in the world as it is, with all the
good and bad.  It's all spiritual, believe it or not.

You see, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was A God".  That's the difference that made good and
bad, both, to contend with.  And if you don't get that, than the
other 13 verses are meaningless and without effect.  It's the only
way to understand why Jehova went to the Moon and caused the six
Elohim to amalgamate together to form Christ - the Word that would
incarnate in physical flesh.  For one time only.

Steve

Well, Stephen, I just don't need to continue the
conversation while you stonewall.

Take Care,
Dottie


> > Stephen, I am not painting any false picture. I am
> > asking you to share with us how you come to a
> thing. I
> > mean really Stephen, is this too much to ask?
>
> Yes it is, coming from someone who doesn't listen,
> read, or make the
> remotest effort to even try a little to draw in
> something from
> outside herself.  You have not one iota of
> understanding.  Your
> obtuseness makes me wonder how I could even begin to
> proceed; not to
> mention not wanting to even try considering that you
> are filled with
> Jewish-style questions of doubt designed to lead to
> other questions,
> ad infinitum.  But hey, questions, that's your big
> thing today.
> >
> > You come back to the Peter Magdalene theme and
> this
> > takes us completely off of what this conversation
> is
> > about. It is about sharing how you come to a
> thing. It
> > is not enough to just say it Stephen. I trust
> there
> > must be some experience or some inspiration or
> some
> > words that led to the thinking you have. I would
> like
> > to know of this so I can better understand what
> you
> > are talking about.
>
> The Peter/Magdalene theme comes from you, with this:
>
> "Oh Dan, I disagree with you if you are implying
> that I
> am asking from a place that is looking to catch him
> in
> something. I am asking in purety. It might be a
> little
> tight but I think that comes with the teritorry when
> one presents things as facts. Stephen and I have
> debated the role of Peter and Mary Magdalene and
> very
> much disagree with his understanding of the
> Magdalene.
> And from day one I have always asked him to please
> share with me how he comes to his understandings."
>
> Asking in purity, my ass.  That's why I wrote what I
> wrote.  And my
> experience of what forms the basis of the Etheric
> Christ has been
> documented here a number of times, but you don't
> listen, read, or
> comprehend.  So, what more can I say.  Well, this:
> your sensing
> into things is a product of your fictitious mind and
> its phoney
> spirituality.  Try just living in the world as it
> is, with all the
> good and bad.  It's all spiritual, believe it or
> not.
>
> You see, "In the Beginning was the Word, and the
> Word was with God,
> and the Word was A God".  That's the difference that
> made good and
> bad, both, to contend with.  And if you don't get
> that, than the
> other 13 verses are meaningless and without effect.
> It's the only
> way to understand why Jehova went to the Moon and
> caused the six
> Elohim to amalgamate together to form Christ - the
> Word that would
> incarnate in physical flesh.  For one time only.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to share a story in the Times today that I
thought was pretty astounding. They are looking at new
ways to call the Trinity. One of them is Father,
Mother, Holy Womb.... I mean whoa...

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-trinity30jun30,0,3342628.story?tr\
ack=mostviewed-splashpage

d

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> Well, Stephen, I just don't need to continue the
> conversation while you stonewall.
>
> Take Care,
> Dottie

No, you take care.  I'm done with this until you show some real
interest in what I wrote.  In other words, give some input in order
to make it worthy.  You can't just ask without giving something.  I
gave, and I stuck my neck out in order to do it.  These thoughts
were recorded twelve years ago, and only revealed now.  Yet, you
demand, and demand and demand.

And that tells me a lot.  So, take care in that sense that you
always temporarily mean it.  Because this business is life and death
to me, and you're sucking the life out of me.

Steve

Stephen, I didn't realize that these questions were
experienced as sucking the life out of you. I
appreciate that you have spent all these years working
on something. And I want to understand it. If we were
face to face I would be asking you during our
conversation 'okay, how did you come to that, how do
you know that'. I mean that's the way I do study to
understand. It was not meant in a way to discredit you
in any way it really was meant to say 'whoa, wait you
have a lot of information, can you help me make a
connection to it'. I do this in spite of all the
things I disagree with that you write such as opinions
of certain persons and so forth. I mean you are just
quick off the bat with Dennis and many others. And yet
you get bothered when someone asks you some questions
about your work. I am trying to get a frieken
connection to your work. You may think one should
already have it and so forth and with your low opinion
of me I imagine it would seem that it would be a waste
of your time. But it seems to me that others would
like to be able to join in versus just hearing or
reading a thing.

So, I am sorry you feel the way you do and I meant no
harm by it. I really did want to understand how you
came to them.

Take Care,
Dottie

--- Steve Hale <sardisian01@...> wrote:

> --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
> dottie zold
> <dottie_z@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, Stephen, I just don't need to continue the
> > conversation while you stonewall.
> >
> > Take Care,
> > Dottie
>
> No, you take care.  I'm done with this until you
> show some real
> interest in what I wrote.  In other words, give some
> input in order
> to make it worthy.  You can't just ask without
> giving something.  I
> gave, and I stuck my neck out in order to do it.
> These thoughts
> were recorded twelve years ago, and only revealed
> now.  Yet, you
> demand, and demand and demand.
>
> And that tells me a lot.  So, take care in that
> sense that you
> always temporarily mean it.  Because this business
> is life and death
> to me, and you're sucking the life out of me.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

JoAnn is the queen dilettante around here Joel; you should know
that.  And being a witch, she already has all the power meant for
her in this lifetime.  Thus, in her typical desultory fashion, she
sticks her musing two-cents worth in from time to time.

Steve
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Joel Wendt
<hermit@...> wrote:
>
> Always have to consider the source, R. J. Stewart teaches magic
and
> stuff.  Here is that odd fellow from 2000 years ago:
>
> Woe to you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for cleaning
off the
> rim of your cup and saucer while on the inside you're bursting
with
> greed and wild appetites.  Blind Pharisee, wash out the inside of
the
> cup and saucer first, if you want the outside to end up clean!
Woe to
> you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for being like dusty
> monuments that look pretty on the outside but on the inside are
full of
> the bones of corpses and all kinds of rot.  You likewise from the
> outside appear to the world to be decent, but inside you're full
of
> hypocrisy and ways around the law. Matthew 23: 25-28
>
> I wonder what He was talking about, if not self-development?  Care
to
> share Jo Ann?
>
> warm regards,
> joel
>
>
> Jo Ann Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Although I have been following this list intermittantly for the
past
> > couple of weeks
> > -- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will attest -- I
> > thought the
> > following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the discussion:
> >
> > "I often think that self-development is essentially a
materialistic
> > false goal, masquerading as something supposedly spiritual."
> >
> > Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
> > JoAnn
> >
> > ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> > *****Cheney delenda est!*****
> >
> >
>

There are people on this list that make my heart soar, like
Bradford, Dan, and Valerie, because they really care without judging
me to prove something more.  You make me prove everything without
even a quote.  Dan went so far as to actually put these ideas on
etheric regeneration in relation to the evolutionary-teleological
perspective, and that demonstrates a kinship that is rare.  But it
is here, and can be found among the ruins.

You are no philosopher, Dottie, and I suspect that suits your
Augustan festival just fine.  But any sincere and serious student of
Rudolf Steiner can find me just fine, and that is important for you
to note.

Steve

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> Stephen, I didn't realize that these questions were
> experienced as sucking the life out of you. I
> appreciate that you have spent all these years working
> on something. And I want to understand it. If we were
> face to face I would be asking you during our
> conversation 'okay, how did you come to that, how do
> you know that'. I mean that's the way I do study to
> understand. It was not meant in a way to discredit you
> in any way it really was meant to say 'whoa, wait you
> have a lot of information, can you help me make a
> connection to it'. I do this in spite of all the
> things I disagree with that you write such as opinions
> of certain persons and so forth. I mean you are just
> quick off the bat with Dennis and many others. And yet
> you get bothered when someone asks you some questions
> about your work. I am trying to get a frieken
> connection to your work. You may think one should
> already have it and so forth and with your low opinion
> of me I imagine it would seem that it would be a waste
> of your time. But it seems to me that others would
> like to be able to join in versus just hearing or
> reading a thing.
>
> So, I am sorry you feel the way you do and I meant no
> harm by it. I really did want to understand how you
> came to them.
>
> Take Care,
> Dottie

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Smith" <ftsster@...> wrote:
>
> On 6/29/06, Guenter Kreidl gkreidl@... wrote:
> >
> > Oops, my email went off before I could say what I wanted to ... hit the
> > wrong key, I suppose. and issued some kind of command ...
> >
> > I'm new here and wanted to have a look first, what's going on here, but I
> > found something which is defenitely a wrong quote from German and so ...
> >
> > > Steiner used "Verständnisseele",
> > > which is literally "understanding soul", no way around that. So why
> > > should it be translated differently if it's not necessary to do so for
> > > understanding (sic) of what it means.
> >
> > Steiner NEVER used "Verständnisseele", he always used "Verstandesseele" or
> > sometimes "Verstandes- und Gemütsseele", so "understanding soul" is
> > definitely a wrong translation.
> >
> > Don't ask me for a better one, I'm German :-)
> >
> > Guenter
> >
> > I dig you Guenter, and will always defer to a German native speaker when
> > the meaning of the original German is concerned. You're right of course
> > about "Verstandesseele" and I don't know why I confused it with
> > Verständnis..." (just not paying attention, I guess, and not bothering to
> > check). However, now that you've come on board with the correction, I still
> > must ask you why you say that "understanding soul" is definitely a wrong
> > translation. My problem, I assume, is that I don't see much difference
> > between "...andes" and "...ändnis". In any case, would you agree that
> > "understanding" is better than "intellectual", which carries the baggage of
> > intellectualism? Also, do you think that "rational soul" would be better?
> > Another question: As you write above, Steiner used "Verstandes-und (oder?)
> > Gemütseele". Isn't Gemüt quite different from Verstand? (I can't help but
> > associate it with "gemütlich".) I think it was Lievegoed who said somewhere
> > that "Gemütseele" could refer to, fe, a kindergarten teacher who passes to
> > the consciousness soul without passing through the "Verstand" stage. In
> > other words, they are not quasi-synonymous. Thanks for your input.
> >
>
> Frank
>
>
> --
> Frank Thomas Smith
> http://SouthernCrossReview.org
>

Well, one can always *share,* Joel, although I find it to be quite a different
matter as to whether or not one will actually be *heard," don't you?

Mayhap you believe it does not matter why one pursues self-development.  I would
disagree.  I seem to recall that even that "odd fellow from 2000 years ago"
reportedly enjoined us not to do such work so that we may be seen of men.

Of course, YMMV.

Musing on those who have ears to hear...
JoAnn


--- Joel Wendt wrote:

> Always have to consider the source, R. J. Stewart teaches magic and
> stuff.  Here is that odd fellow from 2000 years ago:
>
> Woe to you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for cleaning off the
> rim of your cup and saucer while on the inside you're bursting with
> greed and wild appetites.  Blind Pharisee, wash out the inside of the
> cup and saucer first, if you want the outside to end up clean!  Woe to
> you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for being like dusty
> monuments that look pretty on the outside but on the inside are full of
> the bones of corpses and all kinds of rot.  You likewise from the
> outside appear to the world to be decent, but inside you're full of
> hypocrisy and ways around the law. Matthew 23: 25-28
>
> I wonder what He was talking about, if not self-development?  Care to
> share Jo Ann?
>
> warm regards,
> joel
>
>
> Jo Ann Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Although I have been following this list intermittantly for the past
> > couple of weeks
> > -- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will attest -- I
> > thought the
> > following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the discussion:
> >
> > "I often think that self-development is essentially a materialistic
> > false goal, masquerading as something supposedly spiritual."
> >
> > Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
> > JoAnn
> >



~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
*****Cheney delenda est!*****

--- Steve Hale wrote:
> JoAnn is the queen dilettante around here Joel; you should know
> that.  And being a witch, she already has all the power meant for
> her in this lifetime.  Thus, in her typical desultory fashion, she
> sticks her musing two-cents worth in from time to time.

Hey Stephen,

Bite me.

Musing, it's *good* to be queen....
JoAnn







~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
*****Cheney delenda est!*****

"Children in particular are susceptible to DU poisoning," he went
on. "They have a much higher absorption rate as their blood is being
used to build and nourish their bones and they have a lot of soft
tissues. Bone cancer and leukemia used to be diseases affecting them
the most. However, cancer of the lymph system, which can develop
anywhere on the body and has rarely been seen before the age of 12,
is now also common."

Bradford comments;

This that you do to the least of these you do also unto whom? Whom
do we deliberately insult? Whom do we deliberately re-crucify? But
what have we done sheeple? And what do we understand when we read
these things? The Michael School doesn't do its job, that is for
damn sure. We have buried the idea that the etheric body of the
little children are sucking in the light they need to build their
little form to carry the astral and i am, to build a physical vessel
to carry the spirit and carry their incarnations to validity. A
fighting chance!!! To live, to incarnate, to breath in moral and
warmed human life.

Where does this article arise from? I'll let you know. But just once
again, here seeps into the etheric the poison gamma, decayed light.
Decayed, destructive light, instead of that light which the world
with the Christ in it offers we glibly sprinkle this dust over the
whole planet. Light is drawn in, invades the etheric physical of the
developing child and it is this light, this decayed, deadly light,
that we wantonly worship and offer to humanity in place of what the
Grail Sciences and the Great Aura and mantle of the Christ Bearing
awakened as the 30's of the 20th century brought the mighty rhythm
of Christ back to humanity in a new arising from his deed on
Golgotha. It is fallen and decayed light that bypasses, invades,
destroys and rips, shatters and mangles the etheric healthiness of
the Living Light of the Etheric all around us.

Not even a little whimper in our full swallowing of failed history
lessons. No rich distinct focus on where this journey went wrong.
The Grail Sciences were buried and in those Grail Sciences lay the
entire rich re-discovery of all that the Etheric world means to
humanity in upbuilding, restoring and healing magnitudes of intimacy
and human warmth, compassion and the literal intimacy of how the
physical and etheric body of children absorb the moral strength from
the highest forces of humanity and education as upbuilding life. The
Way, the Truth and the Life, don't make me laugh. And Waldorf
Education plays no small part in that picture of the 1% attempting
to hold onto the upbuilding forces of childhood. Hogwarts is a
shattered picture of the true effects, the early foundations where
thinking and imagination take root so that humanity could once more
read, "Man as Symphony" and truly understand it. Don't make me cry!

"Depleted uranium - DU - is the Defense Establishment euphemism for
U-238, a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process and the
ultimate dirty weapon material. It's almost twice as dense as lead,
catches fire when launched and explodes on impact into
microscopically fine particles, or "nano-particles," which are
easily inhaled or absorbed through the skin; it's also radioactive,
with a half-life of 4.468 billion years."

Thursday 29 June 2006

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006N.shtml

     "The unending game of "pretend" that the U.S. media allow George
Bush to play on the global stage, so often letting his lying
utterances hang suspended, unchallenged, in the middle of the story,
as though they were plausible - as though a class of third-graders
couldn't demolish them with a few innocent questions - feels like
the journalistic equivalent of waterboarding. Gasp! Some truth,
please!

     I suggest the prez has forfeited the right to command a
headline, or half a story, or an uninterrupted quote: "... we'll
defend ourselves, but at the same time we're actively working with
our partners to spread peace and democracy," he said last week in
Austria.

     Surely "spreading democracy" should no longer be allowed to
appear in print, between now and 2008, unless accompanied by a
parenthetical clarification ("not true," stated as profanely as
local standards allow). And that, of course, would only be the
media's first step back into integrity with the public.

     The occupation of Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, the
entire war (to promote) terror ... please, please, can these no
longer be trotted out in consequence-free abstraction, but as the
high-tech malevolence they are, actively continuing the incalculable
devastation of countries and their populations?

     The bodies keep piling up, the toxic horrors spread. Hasn't
anyone in this place ever heard of depleted uranium? Is the health
crisis in Iraq and, indeed, throughout the Middle East and Central
Asia, not to mention Kosovo and among returning vets for the last
four American wars, somehow irrelevant to "the course" we're asked
to stay?

     "Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have
never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one
patient. For example, leukemia and cancer of the stomach. We had one
patient with two cancers - one in his stomach and kidney. Months
later, primary cancer was developing in his other kidney - he had
three different cancer types. The second is the clustering of cancer
in families. We have 58 families here with more than one person
affected by cancer.... My wife has nine members of her family with
cancer."

     This is Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the oncology center at the
largest hospital in Basra, speaking in 2003 at a peace conference in
Japan. Why is it that only peace activists are able to hear people
like this? Why hasn't he been asked to testify before Congress as
its members debate the future of this war and the next?"

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
<dottie_z@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Dan,
>
> I am wondering if you have read the Pistis Sophia from
> the Nag Hammadi Library?

I am wondering if this is the same as "The Sophia of Jesus Christ." If
so, Dan recently supplied the link for it and this was my favorite part:

"And the immortals, whom I have just described, all have authority from
Immortal Man, who is called 'Silence', because by reflecting without
speech all her own majesty was perfected."

Silence then-the ultimate in brevity-really is Golden-Val

Have I got this right? By this statement are you inferring that R.J. Stewart
(whoever that may be) was writer of the Matthew gospel?

Mike T


>From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
>Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
>To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Interesting Quote
>Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:23:27 -0700
>
>Always have to consider the source, R. J. Stewart teaches magic and
>stuff.  Here is that odd fellow from 2000 years ago:
>
>Woe to you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for cleaning off the
>rim of your cup and saucer while on the inside you're bursting with
>greed and wild appetites.  Blind Pharisee, wash out the inside of the
>cup and saucer first, if you want the outside to end up clean!  Woe to
>you canon-lawyers and Pharisees, you fakes, for being like dusty
>monuments that look pretty on the outside but on the inside are full of
>the bones of corpses and all kinds of rot.  You likewise from the
>outside appear to the world to be decent, but inside you're full of
>hypocrisy and ways around the law. Matthew 23: 25-28
>
>I wonder what He was talking about, if not self-development?  Care to
>share Jo Ann?
>
>warm regards,
>joel
>
>
>Jo Ann Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Although I have been following this list intermittantly for the past
> > couple of weeks
> > -- as the 271 unread emails in my list mail box will attest -- I
> > thought the
> > following quote from RJ Stewart was appropos for the discussion:
> >
> > "I often think that self-development is essentially a materialistic
> > false goal, masquerading as something supposedly spiritual."
> >
> > Musing on the paths taken and passed by....
> > JoAnn
> >
> > ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
> > *****Cheney delenda est!*****
> >
> >
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Meet Sexy Singles today @ Lavalife - Click here
http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2\
Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%\
26a%3D22740&_t=751140432&_r=emailtagline_meetsexy_june&_m=EXT