Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11549Re: Amoeba contra Manu

Expand Messages
  • opetha
    Oct 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      "Disfigurations in the Orient" is the opposite of "Transformations in
      the Occident", where would we be without ambiguity? We must face our
      devil sometime.

      Tarot cards--that's why it appears "typical new-age", maybe a typical
      filter is the case. But what I say is 100% eternal law of the dhamma,
      so far as the unconscious as mulaprakriti is unchanging ideation from
      which any spiritual world, in any epoch, is built.

      Bless.

      Godot.












      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale" <sardisian01@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "opetha" <opetha@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Hello Bradford
      > >
      > > OK, I understand what you're saying if only you wouldn't go so
      far
      > > ahead and write so much, it all only proves to me the theory of
      > that
      > > psychological type.
      >
      > Yes, Bradford writes alot, just as you write alot. Actually, I
      > don't see much of a difference. Now, I try to write in brief
      > because it serves to catch the eye, and maybe gets a response,
      which
      > is what I look for. I said you wrote "hodgepodge" because you
      were
      > pulling out all stops to write 'new-age' dribble, which some
      > possibly could have found offensive. In fact, I found your initial
      > post offensive and arrogant. And that is why I didn't respond to
      > indications of Steinerian concepts from his "Foundations of
      > Esotericism" lectures from 1905.
      >
      > You are quite right in that Jung and Steiner represent a polarity;
      > just as Kant and Steiner represent a polarity from a philosophical
      > standpoint. This has all been gone over before, on that other
      > little ship called the s.s. minnow. Jung is to psychology what
      Kant
      > is to philosophy in terms of limits to knowledge and perception.
      > And Rudolf Steiner overcame these bounds for those that seek to
      > overcome such limits in order to go further in terms of knowledge
      > and being.
      >
      > Esotericism and its relationship to modern thought is what
      interests
      > me. Spiritual science exists in order to extend thinking and
      > knowledge into the causal realm that stands behind external
      > phenomena. But you have to take up the study in earnest, just as
      > you have taken up your study of Jungian principles according to a
      > collective unconsciousness that is quite attractive to people today
      > because it leaves the mysteries and enigmas alone; except to engage
      > in conservative speculation about what things mean in the greater
      > course of events.
      >
      > Thus, synchonicity and its phenomenal representation is a fact that
      > only spiritual science can truly penetrate into its causality as an
      > increasing experience of spiritual necessity. I didn't want to
      lose
      > that important point.
      >
      > Steve
      >
    • Show all 30 messages in this topic