Dear Lists

Greetings.

My name is Rev. Ibiso Igani.  I am from Nigeria and a Christian interested in
esoteric christianity. I am new to Anthroposophy and Dr. Steiner's works. I am
glad to find this forum which I think will enable to learn.

May the blessings of the Lord be with you.

Yours in Christ

Rev. Ibiso Igani

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, revigani <iganet2002@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Lists
>
> Greetings.
>
> My name is Rev. Ibiso Igani.  I am from Nigeria and a Christian
interested in esoteric christianity. I am new to Anthroposophy and Dr.
Steiner's works. I am glad to find this forum which I think will
enable to learn.
>
> May the blessings of the Lord be with you.
>
> Yours in Christ
>
> Rev. Ibiso Igani
>
Dear Rev. Igani,

Welcome to our Steiner group. It is good to have a new friend with us.

Blessings,

Sheila

Hi all.

Starman wrote:
'But then, several other online groups suffer from TOO
MUCH "communication"

I do agree - a balance is always good in communications.


Any thoughts ... I wonder what Rudolf Steiner would have to say on
Edgar Cayce?

This from John Davy:
<http://southerncrossreview.org/59/davy1.htm>

". . . . Dr. Steiner says that even the idea of a year is no longer valid
earlier than mid-Atlantean times, as it is only since then that the earth has
been revolving round the sun at the same speed and in the same orbit as it does
today. Thus when geologists put the beginning of the Cambria at some 500 million
years ago, this represents an extrapolation of contemporary time-scales back
into ages when they do not apply. Before Atlantean times, in fact, it is
pointless to think in terms of numbers of years; one has to think purely
qualitatively, instead."

I didn't recall that RS put the present astronomical
relations as arising only so recently.  Davy doesn't
give the quote or citation.  Can anyone find the
trail to Steiner's actual words that Davy is
apparently alluding to?

Robert M

It is interesting to note Mars is a reincarnation of Old Moon.

From `The Book of Revelation' lecture 15

`The oldest priests in Babylon used the powers of dream-clairvoyance
in a way that we would call mediumistic clairvoyance today. The
wonderful teachings of old Babylon came into being through the use of
this mediumistic path.

Today we can see that even mediums who seem suitable to mediate
spiritual teachings—which is often done, only it ought to be under
the guidance of initiates with the necessary insight—even such
seemingly suitable mediums are susceptible to influences that are
highly questionable morally.

Because there is often a disproportion in mediums between what they
reveal and what they are, they can often in the end not distinguish
between truth and untruth; and this can intensify to an incapacity to
separate what is moral from what is immoral.

You must understand what happens with a medium. A person becomes a
medium—and this was the same with the Babylonian priests—when an
external power draws the `I' and astral body out of the physical and
ether body. The moment the medium's `I' and astral body have been
with¬drawn from the physical and etheric body, another power enters
into this `I' and astral body.

Depending on whether the initiator doing this has good or evil
intent, whether he belongs to the left-hand or the right-hand path,
this power will be either good or evil.

In the time of ancient Babylon, excellent knowledge and revelations
came about by this means. Later on, and today, there began to be a
dis¬advantage: What happens when the medium re-enters the physical
body?

You see, the logic we have in the physical world by which we
distinguish between untruth and truth is no use in the spiritual
world. It is a complete mistake to believe that one can use in the
spiritual world the concepts of untruth and truth that are current
here in the physical world.

There is nothing in the spiritual world that can be distinguished in
this manner. There are beings who are good and others who are evil.
You have to recognize them for what they are, for they do not tell
you. But even the evil ones are true in their own way. This is
difficult to understand, of course, just as every¬thing we encounter
on entering the spiritual world is difficult to understand. Here in
the physical world we can state that a straight line is the shortest
distance between two points. In the spiritual world this could be the
longest distance, with any other one being shorter.

None of the logic we most certainly need here in the physical world
is any use in the spiritual world. So a true initiate needs to have a
special disposition of soul in order to see into the spiritual world.

He must be fully responsible in the way he immediately works with
physical concepts as soon as he returns to the physical world. A
medium, however, is not capable of doing this because he or she does
not enter the spiritual world consciously.

When the medium returns, `I' and astral body fill the physical and
etheric body with a way of thinking that is appropriate for the
spiritual world but which corrupts all moral feelings and sensations
that are valid in the physical world. That is why a medium is
corrupted with regard to truth and untruth, and this then works on in
everything else.

We can say that in fact Babylon went through this process and that
thus even the highest, most significant revelation from the spiritual
world became terribly corrupted. What initially applies to the
principle of spiritual revelation can also extend to include ordinary
human life, so that strong corruption sets in.

Having entered spiritual life in this way, a human being then becomes
more immoral than he was previously as an ordinary person. That is
why Babylon was taken to be the representative of moral corruption,
and the expressions used in the Book of Revelation are simply the
usual expressions by which corruption was described at that time'.






--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
>
>
> ******* I think he would have had a "balanced" view. ;->   He had
such a view of so many psychics he knew of, lauding their positive
work (e.g., Swedenborg, Blavatsky) while pointing out where they
perhaps fell short. He certainly would have had a much more balanced
opinion than the generation of anthroposophists which followed
Steiner's death, and who still are rather dogmatic around the
Goetheanum. See, Steiner had to make use of what he had, which in the
beginning was the Theosophical Society. By his time, Blavatsky was
dead and there were a lot of phonies running around claiming to
communicate with the White Brotherhood (a fraud still going on today,
by the way--- including here online). People who had no psychic
ability, such as Annie Besant, would swear total confidence in
whatever someone who claimed to be able to go into a trance state,
such as Leadbeater, would say. Steiner was light years ahead of the
dabblers in Theosophy, and one important insight he had was that
there are two primary kinds of spirits that work in human Psi
ability, the Luciferic and the Ahrimanic. Artists who work themselves
up into emotion-charged visionary states, for instance, have a
Luciferic being come into them and 'possess' them, while people who
go into a hypnotic trance state have an Ahrimanic being temporarily
possess them. As a result, neither produce reliable results, unlike
the true spiritual science Steiner developed, where neither is the
source. Well, because so many Theosophists were inclined to run to
some "psychic", Steiner's early lectures were filled with warnings
about such, especially about the dangers of going into trance states,
so that for years no anthroposophist would find any good in any
psychics. They would dogmatically repeat that nothing from that
source could be any good. But this is a little extreme reading of
Steiner's lectures, in the same way that just reading those could
make one think Steiner found no value at all in Eastern religion
because the Theosophists of his time were so heavily Eastern-oriented
that he felt he had to counter their tendencies, and so he inveighed
again and again against Yoga and such as being inappropriate for
Western people. But just as he highly valued Eastern spirituality, so
he also recognized the wonderful nature of what came through
psychics. It's just that most of them don't control it
scientifically, so it's not 100% reliable.
>
>   And that is also the case with Cayce. He never developed himself
to the point of attaining clairvoyance, as Steiner and others have
done: he was just born with a freakish ability inherited from other
lives, while in his conscious state being unable to direct it. Awake,
he was a simple Southern Baptist and relied on God as he imagined Him
from Scripture to keep him straight. Fortunately for us all, God and
Christ can indeed help us even if we don't know the speed of light
and all such abstruse matters, and so Edgar Cayce when he went into
his trance state to get medical information on a person and invoked
the protection of the Christ while doing so, was able to compel the
Ahrimanic spirit speaking through him to tell the truth. When the
people giving him his suggestions went afield and asked things from
curiousity, without an intent to help heal people, the information
was mostly corrupt, which is why none of Cayce's predictions of great
earth changes came true. I've tried to look at Cayce as Dr. Steiner
would have, as an extraordinary example of a kind of psychic ability
that is becoming rarer and rarer (it will disappear over the next few
centuries) while still not trustworthy in everything because of the
trance state it came through.
>
>     Superficially, it's obvious that Cayce contacted the same
source as Balvatsky and Steiner: just a few of the things they all 3
spoke of were Atlantis, Lemuria, the etheric body, the astral body,
the Akashic Records, reincarnation and karma, Root Races (and our own
being the 5th), and the "secret doctrine" of knowledge gained through
initiation which underlay all religions. Cayce and Steiner also
agreed on things as diverse as that the Lord's Prayer was a method of
invoking the 7 chakras---- which also have to do with the 7 planes of
the solar system which connect reincarnation with astrology---that
the Bible was of 3 parts, an Old Testament that was the Past, a New
Testament that was the Present and the Book of Revelations which was
the Future; and both Cayce's Readings and Steiner's anthroposophy
find the Incarnation, Death and Resurrection of the Christ was the
central event of all history and the key to spiritual reality. There
are lots of differences, but that's an awful lot of similarities.
>
>   Starmanwww.DrStarman.com
>
>
>
> To: steiner@...: carynlouise24@...: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:21:54
+0000Subject: [steiner] Edgar Cayce
>
>
>
>
> Hi all. Starman wrote:'But then, several other online groups suffer
from TOO MUCH "communication"I do agree - a balance is always good in
communications.Any thoughts ... I wonder what Rudolf Steiner would
have to say on Edgar Cayce?
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Making the world a better place one message at a time.
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace
>

To *******, who wrote:

>>Steiner said (in "Ancient Myths", Lecture # 7, 13th Jan., 1918: "about
25-26,000 yrs ago the Lemurian age came to an end... 12 epochs ago, the sun was
in the same position" . . . .<<

Robert writes:

Yes, here are Steiner's words from that
lecture:
<http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/AncientMyths/19180113p01.html>

"Let us turn our attention to the seventh epoch of the Lemurian civilization. It
lies approximately 25,900 years before our epoch. It was about 25,000-26,000
years ago that this seventh epoch of the Lemurian age came to an end on earth.
However remarkable it may sound, there is a certain resemblance between this
seventh Lemurian epoch and our own epoch. Similarities are as we know always to
be found between successive periods, similarities of the most diverse kinds. We
have found a close similarity between our age and the Egypto-Chaldean. We will
now speak of one which is more distant; there is also externally, cosmically, a
resemblance. You know that our epoch which begins in about the 15th century of
the Christian era is connected with the cosmos through the fact that since that
time the sun has its Vernal Point in Pisces, in the constellation of Pisces, the
Fishes. The sun had previously been for 2,160 years in the constellation of
Aries, the Ram, at
  the Vernal Equinox. Here in this seventh Lemurian epoch (left) there were
similar conditions. Twelve epochs ago the sun was in the same position. So that
towards the end of the Lemurian age there were conditions similar to ours."

Reading this in the natural way, it
does seem that RS is using *years* in
the usual sense, referring back to the
end of the Lemurian age.  So apparently,
Davy got it wrong; maybe he meant the
middle of the Lumurian age?

-- A couple of cautionary notes:

The vernal point actually entered the
sidereal constellation of Pisces in 209 AD
(taking the Babylonian arrangement of the
sidereal Zodiac into 12 neat 30-degree
constellations).  Since we are now in the
Piscean cultural epoch (the fifth post-
Atlantean), which began in 1413 AD, there is
apparently a 1204-year lag between the entrance
of the vernal point into a sidereal
constellation and the beginning of its
corresponding 2160-year cultural epoch.

And:  In the 6th lecture of Steiner's 3rd
scientific course (the so-called "Astronomy
Course") he says:

"The Ancient Indian epoch comes very near to the
time when glacial conditions prevailed in our
regions of the Earth. A culture like the
Ancient Indian could only develop when such
climatic conditions, more or less, as we enjoy
in the Temperate zone today, extended to what
is now the Equator. You can deduce it simply
from the relative advance or retreat of the
ice; tropical conditions did not come about in
India until a must later time, when in more
northerly regions the ice had receded."

So:  Here Steiner seems to imply that the last
ice age persisted (at least in Europe) well
into the first post-Atlantean cultural epoch,
because the climate in India then had to be
temperate.  That's about 3700 to 5800 years
after 11000 BC. -- A contradiction?

I guess that here, as so often, we have to
allow that Steiner was speaking
extemporaneously, hurriedly, and only
approximately.  In this cycle he repeatedly
remarked about how he couldn't go into much
detail and had to leave it to his students to
work out the details.  At least, it seems, we
have to allow that the phrase *very nearly* has
to be taken as only a rough approximation.

Robert M

The Edgar Cayce's I have read are:

The Life Story of Jesus
The Origin and Destiny of Man
Revelation
Many Happy Returns

My thoughts are:

In Friedrich Rittelmeyer's `RUDOLF STEINER ENTERS MY LIFE' Friedrich
writes:

`His (Rudolf Steiner) attitude in the Krishnamurti affair shows that
he regarded it as the greatest occult sin to claim authority for
anyone on the ground of previous incarnations. In the age of
the "Consciousness Soul" everyone must appeal with his teaching
simply and solely to men's own objective sense of truth, and convince
them purely on the basis of reason'.

Edgar Cayce in an unconscious state claimed authority for person's
previous incarnations and this should be a reason for concern.

For instance; say someone like Edgar Cayce had to say to me `you were
Mickey Mouse in your previous incarnation' – if I was naïve enough to
believe this (because I was seeking the fundamental question of
life `who am I') I would spend the rest of my life prancing around
thinking to myself `I am Mickey Mouse' and further begin to act, take
on the role of, Mickey Mouse - only to find when I pass through the
portals of death I was actually Donald Duck in a previous incarnation
and thus wasted a whole life in misconception.

The age old wisdom comes to mind `Know Thyself' through yourself
being yourself.

Another factor; Edgar Cayce has claimed himself to be the great
ancient leader Ra and the great mathematician Pythagoras in previous
lifetimes.

As far as I know not even Rudolf Steiner would claim to ascertain who
he was in previous lifetimes in such an open manner; and further the
true understanding of reincarnation of Initiates is not truly
understood by the uninitiated.

At this point I would like to say; Stephen Hale is greatly respected
and (in my view) his investigations into the Karmic relationships
between people is well thought through, done in a very concise manner
and most importantly in a conscious manner.  These investigations, on
people who have already passed through the portals, namely Rudolf
Steiner himself, directly proves the above writing by Friedrich
Rittelmeyer on Rudolf Steiner's view on previous incarnations are
done with an objective sense of truth based on knowledge and reason
and is a gift invaluable to anthroposophy.

I have spent years pondering Edgar Cayce and it is not without undue
considerations I put this forward.


--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> To: steiner@...: Cheeseandsalsa@...: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:21 -
0400Subject: Re: [steiner] Edgar Cayce
>
>
>
> Barbara Handclow who isn't an anthro said that Cayce is a member
and his father of the masons. She wrote that they were of the dark
occult brotherhood...I personally do not resonate with what he
brought to us.
>  I do agree - a balance is always good in communications.Any
thoughts ... I wonder what Rudolf Steiner would have to say on Edgar
Cayce?
>
>
>  1
>
> .
>   *******
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, in this particular case I can say flatly that the lady is
mistaken. Neither Cayce nor his father were Masons, I know that from
personal study and contact with his family and many people who
actually knew him here in Virginia Beach. He was not a member of
anything, and in fact didn't know about Theosophy or anything
esoteric until he began answering questions about such matters in
his "readings." He almost never remembered anything he said in trance
so they had to have a stenographer take it all down, and he read what
he'd said afterwards along with everybody else.  He was a simple
Christian while awake and never joined anything except the local
Presbyterian Church here. His father was a difficult man whom Edgar
didn't get along with very well, but he also was not a member of any
brotherhood or anything and had nothing to do with Edgar Cayce's work
most of his life.
>
>    As to what you don't resonate with in the Cayce Readings, well
there's a lot that may be criticized in many ways. I don't know what
you've read from them.
>
> Starman
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's a talkathon – but it's not just talk.
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk
>

Caryne Louise said:

> At this point I would like to say; Stephen Hale is greatly respected
> and (in my view) his investigations into the Karmic relationships
> between people is well thought through...

Steven Hale is a 3rd rate charlatan and moral retrograde.  I spit on
his name and anyone who mentions it in this forum.

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
>
>
> *******Who is he? I've never heard of him.
>

--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Mathew Morrell" <tma4cbt@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > *******Who is he? I've never heard of him.
> >
>
>
>
> Steven Hale is that psycho pomp you removed from this forum a couple
> years ago, who joined this forum, it seems, for no other purpose than to
> clog it up, undermine, and manipulate people like me with his
> overbearing, ego-centric personality.
>
> According to my sources, Steve Hale recently accused Starman of being in
> the mold of the Aryan Nation.  That's just one things he's
> accused Starman and myself of being.  There are many more lies and
> falsehoods that pour from this person's mouth.  Mr Hale has made a
> profession of creating devils and unleashing them through
> anthroposophical discussion forums.
>
> Mathew
>
I vaguely recall someone of that name although not the particulars.
Unfortunately, this world seems to be full of unsavory types, and the
best I can say in such cases is to the effect that they will be held
responsible for any and all actions of theirs, and in a well deserved
way. I shudder to ponder such fates and can only try to overlook
harmful events and people while learning from them in the way Steiner
mentions coming across the dead dog with such beautiful teeth, but I
fail far too often.

Blessings,

Sheila

Interesting reactions – Well it is interesting Mars is the
reincarnation of the Old Moon.  Explains the `trance' state.

One thing in life which I cannot stand is when people say `blessings'
or `God bless you' – like they have this authority to tell God who to
bless who not to bless!

Well back to Billy … then



--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:
>
>
> *******Well, I'm sorry but I have to tell you that some of your
information is woefully inaccurate! You could verify this by doing a
search online or reading a few books about the Cayce Readings. I'd
recommend reading a biography of the man first, such as "There Is A
River" by Tom Sugrue, then look through whatever books of excerpts
from his psychic readings interest you, like Edgar Cayce on Atlantis,
Edgar Cayce on Jesus and His Church, etc. You'll find the information
quite similar to Theosophy and anthroposophy, frequently identical.
>
>    The objection of Rittlemeyer's was about people claiming to be
an authority because of who they supposedly were in another life.
This has nothing to do with telling what other peoples' past lives
were--- which of course Dr. Steiner also did, so Rittlemeyer's
criticiism about "claiming authority" on the basis of previous
incarnations couldn't possibly include. He meant saying 'Well, I was
so-and-so in a past life and so you should listen to me' (as one poor
soul currently does who claims to have been Cayce himself, while
producing no evidence of any abilities in this life).  Telling people
they should study music because they have an unrealized musical gift
due to having been a musician in ancient Greece, as the Cayce
Readings might do--- well, that's a completely different thing than
what Rittlemeyer was talking about, clearly. Dr. Steiner also would
identify learning disabilities in children as coming from past lives
and use this knowledge in treatment.
>
>     Also, the Readings did not identify Cayce as having been
Pythagoras. He did say that in a past life he was an Egyptian
initiate unknown to history named Ra Ta, whose memory later became
mixed in with the mythological Ra. But he didn't claim people should
listen to him because he was that priest in the time of the building
of the pyramids. In fact, Cayce didn't ask people to listen to him at
all, as he was not a teacher like Steiner. He was a freakish case of
an ordinary-seeming man who, because of his past lives, could go into
a trance state and connect with the same sources as Blavatsky and
Steiner. In his trances, he mainly was asked medical questions about
people who were sick. Other stuff was secondary to him and he wasn't
sure how much to trust it himself.
>
> -starmanwww.DrStarman.com
>
>
>
> To: steiner@...: carynlouise24@...: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:51:19
+0000Subject: [steiner] Re: Edgar Cayce
>
>
>
>
> The Edgar Cayce's I have read are:The Life Story of JesusThe Origin
and Destiny of ManRevelationMany Happy Returns My thoughts are:In
Friedrich Rittelmeyer's `RUDOLF STEINER ENTERS MY LIFE' Friedrich
writes:`His (Rudolf Steiner) attitude in the Krishnamurti affair
shows that he regarded it as the greatest occult sin to claim
authority for anyone on the ground of previous incarnations. In the
age of the "Consciousness Soul" everyone must appeal with his
teaching simply and solely to men's own objective sense of truth, and
convince them purely on the basis of reason'.Edgar Cayce in an
unconscious state claimed authority for person's previous
incarnations and this should be a reason for concern. For instance;
say someone like Edgar Cayce had to say to me `you were Mickey Mouse
in your previous incarnation' – if I was naïve enough to believe this
(because I was seeking the fundamental question of life `who am I') I
would spend the rest of my life prancing around thinking to myself `I
am Mickey Mouse' and further begin to act, take on the role of,
Mickey Mouse - only to find when I pass through the portals of death
I was actually Donald Duck in a previous incarnation and thus wasted
a whole life in misconception.The age old wisdom comes to mind `Know
Thyself' through yourself being yourself.Another factor; Edgar Cayce
has claimed himself to be the great ancient leader Ra and the great
mathematician Pythagoras in previous lifetimes.As far as I know not
even Rudolf Steiner would claim to ascertain who he was in previous
lifetimes in such an open manner; and further the true understanding
of reincarnation of Initiates is not truly understood by the
uninitiated.At this point I would like to say; Stephen Hale is
greatly respected and (in my view) his investigations into the Karmic
relationships between people is well thought through, done in a very
concise manner and most importantly in a conscious manner. These
investigations, on people who have already passed through the
portals, namely Rudolf Steiner himself, directly proves the above
writing by Friedrich Rittelmeyer on Rudolf Steiner's view on previous
incarnations are done with an objective sense of truth based on
knowledge and reason and is a gift invaluable to anthroposophy.I have
spent years pondering Edgar Cayce and it is not without undue
considerations I put this forward.--- In steiner@yahoogroups.com,
Durward Starman <DrStarman@> wrote:>> > > > To: steiner@:
Cheeseandsalsa@: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 13:32:21 -0400Subject: Re: [steiner]
Edgar Cayce> > > > Barbara Handclow who isn't an anthro said that
Cayce is a member and his father of the masons. She wrote that they
were of the dark occult brotherhood...I personally do not resonate
with what he brought to us. > I do agree - a balance is always good
in communications.Any thoughts ... I wonder what Rudolf Steiner would
have to say on Edgar Cayce?> > > 1> > .> *******> > > > > > Well, in
this particular case I can say flatly that the lady is mistaken.
Neither Cayce nor his father were Masons, I know that from personal
study and contact with his family and many people who actually knew
him here in Virginia Beach. He was not a member of anything, and in
fact didn't know about Theosophy or anything esoteric until he began
answering questions about such matters in his "readings." He almost
never remembered anything he said in trance so they had to have a
stenographer take it all down, and he read what he'd said afterwards
along with everybody else. He was a simple Christian while awake and
never joined anything except the local Presbyterian Church here. His
father was a difficult man whom Edgar didn't get along with very
well, but he also was not a member of any brotherhood or anything and
had nothing to do with Edgar Cayce's work most of his life. > > As to
what you don't resonate with in the Cayce Readings, well there's a
lot that may be criticized in many ways. I don't know what you've
read from them. > > Starman>
__________________________________________________________> It's a
talkathon – but it's not just talk.> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?
source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_JustTalk>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Making the world a better place one message at a time.
> http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace
>