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

recently joined

Expand Messages
  • gringo300
    i m here to study anthroposophy. if i understand it correctly the word translates as man wisdom . so far, i ve done far more research on theosophy than on
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 11, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      i'm here to study anthroposophy. if i understand it correctly the
      word translates as "man wisdom".

      so far, i've done far more research on theosophy than on
      anthroposophy, but i'm working on it...
    • elisa buratti
      Hallo gringo, man wisdom means for S., but not only for him, the level of initiation where man leaves duty for will, (normally around 42° year). If you
      Message 2 of 10 , Dec 12, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hallo gringo,

        "man wisdom" means for S., but not only for him, the level of initiation where man leaves duty for will, (normally around 42° year).
        If you analize the word "wisdom" you can find wise= showing soundness of judgement; dom= (lat) own home. So, wisdom= without judgement compared to known parameters.

        it's impossible to "feel" and understand if you don't arrive there.

        Have a good day,
        elisa

        At 04.53 12/12/2004, you wrote:


        i'm here to study anthroposophy. if i understand it correctly the
        word translates as "man wisdom".

        so far, i've done far more research on theosophy than on
        anthroposophy, but i'm working on it...










        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
        Unsubscribe:
        anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
        List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        [] 

        Get unlimited calls to

        U.S./Canada
        [] 
        []


        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • jarett richardson
        is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism? what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy hold in common? can a person be a theosophist and an
        Message 3 of 10 , Dec 13, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?

          what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
          hold in common?

          can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
          at the same time?



          __________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
          http://my.yahoo.com
        • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
          In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:59:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, gringo300@yahoo.com writes: is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism? what-if
          Message 4 of 10 , Dec 14, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:59:21 P.M. Central Standard Time, gringo300@... writes:

            is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?

            what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
            hold in common?

            can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
            at the same time?
            Depends on how you define esotericism.  There are parts of anthroposophy that are more and less esoteric.  There are parts that are exoteric.  When Steiner lectured about the gospels I would call that esoteric. There are points in those lectures where Steiner point us in a certain direction and you either find that direction or you don't.  When you discover the hidden meanings for yourself that is esoteric. Second question theosophy and anthroposophy have a lot in common except the Christ event is where they stand separate.  The last question I would say, yes of course!  The Christ event is where the big difference is.  I have a lot of books on C.W. Leadbeater.  He has an entire different view than Steiner on the Christ but I am not going to throw the baby out with the bath water and conclude that Leadbeater is unwise.  He was clairvoyant like Steiner and has a lot to offer to people like us.  Being an anthroposophist is not drawing lines between what is and is not.  There is too much grey in between.  Find what speaks to you and find your own truth.  Steiner found his and so we are seekers finding our own.  Hope that helps somewhat.  ~Chantel
          • Joel Wendt
            Dear Jarett, Anthroposophy and Theosophy are very different. Neophytes to Anthroposophy can become confused, however, because the Anthroposophical Society and
            Message 5 of 10 , Dec 15, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jarett,

              Anthroposophy and Theosophy are very different. Neophytes to
              Anthroposophy can become confused, however, because the Anthroposophical
              Society and Movement have lost a true connection to what Steiner taught
              - on multiple levels. As a consequence, there are not a lot of good
              examples of what it means to be an "anthroposophist".

              Much of the confusion within the Society and Movement comes from
              failing to distinguish the method from the content. Anthroposophy is
              not the content of the Steiner's lecture cycles, as if it was a set of
              beliefs or understandings. Anthroposophy is "a path of cognition from
              the spirit in man to the Spirit in the Universe".

              What this last means is that with the arrival of the present stage of
              the evolution of consciousness (what Steiner called the Epoch of the
              Consciousness Soul), a certain potential arose in the soul for a new
              kind of clairvoyance, using "thinking" as the means. This requires deep
              introspection and much else. Here is something I wrote recently on
              another list as regards the new clairvoyance latent in thinking:

              "As you know "mind", or the human inwardness, is a difficult matter to
              discuss, yet from Steiner we are advised to come to knowledge of "mind",
              especially thinking, before any other activity. His view is that
              without understanding the act of thinking, we will remain stuck (in our
              thinking) in its most rudimentary forms.

              "For example: Thinking always has within it, at its deepest
              levels, the quality: perception. In ordinary mind we sleep through this
              perceptual element, and live only in the after effect - the flow of
              words (or concepts). Thinking is always perceiving, but our i-AM often
              only is awake to the secondary effect, which is the stream of words (our
              spirit speaks, our soul hears). To the perceiving aspect we are most
              frequently unconscious.

              "Thinking in words then can become a kind of interesting play,
              although the concepts being played with are dead, when compared with the
              unconscious perceptual element which is living. So when you write a
              term such as "infinitely infinite" I detect, not perception but a play
              with words. You seem here to be "idealizing" the Divine Mystery, by
              attributing to it the most grandiose concepts you can find. God must be
              Great, is the logic, and so if I (you) use concepts which suggest that
              which is beyond any limits, then I (you) am finding true concepts which
              can be applied to God.

              "Lots of people do this, and there is no shame in it. I would
              guess that there is a sense of wonder and awe behind this. The
              unconscious perception you have when you try to think God, leads to this
              oh so awesome qualitative sense of His Being and Mystery, and only such
              terms as point in that direction can justly be applied.

              "Something similar exists (it appears to me) in the discussions
              concerning the Divine Feminine and the two Trinities. God is being
              "idealized", but the different posters to that thread, live in different
              assumptions (and experiences), with the consequence that they can not
              but seem to disagree, given these different assumptions and experiences.

              "For Steiner, he wished for us to find a way beyond being only
              awake in the play of concepts (play of words and terms), which is the
              natural gift of ordinary mind. He had discovered that thinking could go
              further, were we to learn more about thinking through the application of
              a scientifically based (as in method) practice of introspection. He
              wanted us to look within at thinking itself, and through this process of
              self discovery (know thyself) there involved, we would slowly unfold the
              hidden potential of thinking.

              "The essence of this work is the application of will. We are
              ultimately training the will through this practice of introspection. In
              this sense the will can be divided into two kinds of preliminary acts:
              intention and attention.

              "The "intention" works best when it is rooted in a moral impulse
              (thus Steiner's comments in Knowledge of Higher Worlds about taking
              three steps in moral development for every one step in the development
              of higher knowledge).

              "Second to a moral intention, we have to train our ability to
              focus the inner attention. Normally this aspect of mind (the attention)
              wanders all over the place, which is why all the various exercises -
              they all share in common this training of the attention.

              "One of the most important moral acts is sacrifice of thoughts.
              If we already believe we know, there is no progress, because that lack
              of humility toward the inwardness casts a shadow. Nothing new can be
              brought to us by the participation of the Spirit (which seeks to come
              toward us when we learn properly to "think"), when we already know. In
              the Sermon on the Mount, Christ spoke of this, in this way: "Blessed are
              the poor in spirit, for their's is the Kingdom of Heaven" [or, "The poor
              in spirit are in luck: the kingdom of the skies is theirs" - see the
              Unvarnished Gospels]

              "Only when my consciousness is empty of content (sacrifice of
              thoughts), and I am humble in my thinking ("learn to think on your
              knees" - V. Tomberg), can "it think in me" (Steiner) - that is can the
              Spirit co-participate in the act of thinking and bring me that which I
              yet do not know.

              "So we have intention (moral) and attention (open and focused -
              that is: expectant), which then will ride the true essential part that
              is the cultivation of feeling. It is the willed qualitative nature and
              intensity of feeling that is the essential matter. This is why Steiner
              has us (again in Knowledge of Higher Worlds) spend so much time on
              exercises of the subtle inner feelings.

              "In a sense, we place the center of our "self" in the middle of
              our feelings, as if in a bath of subtle living movement. We "cultivate"
              (will) a certain mood of soul, and this mood makes possible
              "intercourse" with the Spirit.

              "Through these activities we are deepening our sense of what
              truly lives in potential in thinking. We move from the superficial play
              of words into that which has been always latent there - perception. But
              the "perception" is only analogous to sense experience. We haven't yet
              the language, so we borrow from sense experience.

              "Thus, Imagination (Steiner's first level of clairvoyance) is
              picture like - this is it is analogous to seeing, only it is an inner
              seeing - our questing feeling attention has discovered knowledge in the
              sense of seeing a picture. Inspiration (Steiner's second level of
              clairvoyance) is analogous to hearing (we have a "conversation" with the
              Invisible world), so the Beings "tell" us answers to our heartfelt
              questions. With Intuition (Steiner's third and deepest level of
              clairvoyance), we "join" (inter-penetrate) the Being, so that our
              essence and their Essence meet. Knowledge then is neither "seen" or
              "heard", but we are changed - we become the knowledge - it (the
              knowledge) is now part of our will.

              "In this way (method - path - anthroposophy), we come to "know"
              the Divine Mystery.

              "So we know as we are known, as St Paul has explained in 1
              Corinthians 12-13: "We see now through a mirror in an obscure manner
              (ordinary mind), but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I
              shall know even as I have been known (Intuition)"."

              I hope Jarett, this is not too much, but these are serious matters and
              I did want to at least point you in the right direction.

              warm regards,
              joel
              Outlaw Anthroposophy: http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/otlwa.html






              On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:08, jarett richardson wrote:
              > is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?
              >
              > what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
              > hold in common?
              >
              > can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
              > at the same time?
            • Maurice McCarthy
              ... I pretty much agree with everything Chantel answered to these questions. If esotericism is a form of inner or hidden knowledge then anthroposophy would
              Message 6 of 10 , Dec 15, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                > In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:59:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                > gringo300@... writes:
                >
                >
                > is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?
                >
                > what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
                > hold in common?
                >
                > can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
                > at the same time?
                >
                >

                I pretty much agree with everything Chantel answered to these questions. If esotericism is a form of inner or hidden knowledge then anthroposophy would meet this criterion as we always look for the inner truth of things.

                Steiner himself was a Theosophist. At the turn of the century when he first started making his esoteric views public no one would listen barring theosophists. They alone provided him with the space to fulfill his life purpose at that point.

                Theosophy is the wisdom of God whereas Anthroposophy is the wisdom of Man. One looks upon knowledge from a higher vantage point. Theosophy is an ideal objective for an anthroposophist who from this more mundane level I see as better suited to the immediate difficulties of the world.

                When Madame Blavatsky died Annie Besant became one the leaders of the Theosophical Society. RS had to take great exception when she proclaimed the child Krishnamurti as the reincarnation of Christ. This was the point at which he broke away to form the Anthroposophical Society from those members who would follow him from the Theosophists. RS's own life purpose was to deliver the teachings on karma but the preparatory grounding necessary had not been achieved. (It should have been done by someone else.) A spirit approached RS to take this on himself and leapt to it. It was more than 20 years later that he finally began delivering his own life purpose, the last year or two of his own life.

                I've often wondered whether the Michaelic forces utilised Luciferic influence upon Annie Besant in order that anthroposophy should be delivered. This sounds cruelly unspiritual but RS's work was aimed at the year 1998 and after. Either we turn the direction of civilisation now, i.e. in this generation or so, or live with the consequences forever.


                As for specific differences between Anthroposophy and Theosophy I'm afraid I don't really know but whereas RS speaks of 'forces' (an abstract term for spirits and/or their actions) the Theosophists appear to speak of finer and finer grades of 'matter'.


                Best Wishes
                Maurice
              • gabi shell
                ... is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism? what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy hold in common? can a person be a theosophist and an
                Message 7 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- jarett richardson <gringo300@...> wrote:

                  ---------------------------------

                  is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?

                  what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
                  hold in common?

                  can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
                  at the same time?



                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
                  http://my.yahoo.com







                  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
                  Unsubscribe:
                  anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com



                  Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT


                  ---------------------------------
                  my personal answer for your question is "yes"



                  ___________________________________________________________
                  Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
                  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
                • holderlin66
                  Maurice McCarthy wrote: I ve often wondered whether the Michaelic forces utilised Luciferic influence upon Annie Besant in order that anthroposophy should be
                  Message 8 of 10 , Dec 16, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Maurice McCarthy wrote:

                    "I've often wondered whether the Michaelic forces utilised Luciferic
                    influence
                    upon Annie Besant in order that anthroposophy should be delivered.
                    This sounds
                    cruelly unspiritual but RS's work was aimed at the year 1998 and
                    after. Either
                    we turn the direction of civilisation now, i.e. in this generation
                    or so, or
                    live with the consequences forever."

                    Maurice;

                    Care to back that statement up with some storm warnings!!!!
                  • joksu57
                    Hello! I pretty much agree with Chantel. Here are some comments about theosophy and anthroposophy, which have much in common. As we all know, Dr. Steiner was
                    Message 9 of 10 , Dec 17, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hello!

                      I pretty much agree with Chantel. Here are some comments about
                      theosophy and anthroposophy, which have much in common. As we all
                      know, Dr. Steiner was able to find the first audience to his deep
                      teachings through the pioneering work of early theosophists,
                      especially HPB. From the declared objectives of TS the first one was
                      regarded as crucial (To form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood
                      of humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste or
                      colour) and there is (IMO) something "rosicrucian" element in this
                      principle. The early work of theosophists consentrated more on older
                      religions (though "Isis" is clearly more rosicrucian book than "The
                      Secret Doctrine"). HPB seems to regard Buddha and buddhism as
                      a "conveyor" of the highest spiritual "message".

                      I see all this as a preliminary work, preparing seekers to understand
                      the Greater Mysteries, Christ-mysteries. Perhaps it was a good thing
                      to let the hypocritical "Christian" western world with its
                      degenerated churches to know about the real achievements of earlier
                      religions (even though there was a strong luciferic element
                      included). Without the knowledge of the earlier spiritual work (e.g.
                      the ancient Rishies, Zarathustra and Gautama Buddha) it is very
                      difficult to clearly understand the crucial turning point and great
                      difference, what the Christ Event ment.

                      Dr. Steiner as a Christian Initiate had the
                      necessary "qualifications" to give to the world (through TS) the
                      teachings about the real meaning of the Christ Event and the Mystery
                      of Golgotha. This could have been the next locigal step after the
                      teachings of HPB (who of course also made mistakes in her teachings
                      concerning the meaning of Christ). But Annie Besant was more
                      interested about ancient hinduism and then came the
                      incredible "Krishnamurti affair" and many other difficulties. Instead
                      of advancing towards Christ-Mysteries the TS took a backward course.
                      The WW I was also declared as a Holy war and Germans were seen under
                      the dominion of black magicians (by the TS leaders). Theosophists
                      were provekod to take part in actual fighting against the Germans.
                      (So, goodbye the 1. objective of the TS, as well as the teachings of
                      Buddha and Christ.)

                      Concerning the "atavistic" clairvoyance of CWL I have some
                      scepticism. Mr. Ervast (whose teachings about the Christ Event were
                      very near of those given by Dr. Steiner) has said some interesting
                      comments abouts CWL. Ervast appreciated Leadbeater's teachings
                      conserning the "astral world". But when CWL described the higher
                      levels, mental (devachan), buddhic etc. it was an other thing. Ervast
                      said that CWL just described the different sub-levels of the astral
                      world, when CWL himself thought that he was on "really high levels".
                      It is the same thing when CWL tries to study the former incarnations
                      of Krishnamurti (in a book called "Man, whence and whither", if my
                      memory serves me.) There Krishnamurti is even "detected" in a very
                      distant period as some kind of a kangaroo type of an animal, already
                      more brighter and obedient than other animals! (Psychic abilities and
                      vivid imagination can make out of the object of the study a
                      real "fairy tale hero".)

                      Maurice mentioned about the finer grades of matter. This is typical
                      in the books of Besant and Leadbeater. According to those
                      descriptions when one goes towards more spiritual worlds matter seem
                      to become more "thinner and finer". This point of view can be
                      considered astral materialism and Dr. Steiner has given some accurate
                      comments about the subject.

                      By the way, the word "theosophy" can be found already in the
                      epistoles of St. Paul: "On the contrary, we speak God's hidden wisdom
                      in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory" (1
                      Cor. 2:7). In Greek something like "Theo Sophie en Mysterion…"


                      Warm Regards
                      Joksu
                      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Cheeseandsalsa@a... wrote:
                      >
                      > In a message dated 12/14/2004 4:59:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
                      > gringo300@y... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      > is anthroposophy considered a form of esotericism?
                      >
                      > what-if any-beliefs do theosophy and anthroposophy
                      > hold in common?
                      >
                      > can a person be a theosophist and an anthroposophist
                      > at the same time?
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Depends on how you define esotericism. There are parts of
                      anthroposophy
                      > that are more and less esoteric. There are parts that are
                      exoteric. When
                      > Steiner lectured about the gospels I would call that esoteric.
                      There are points in
                      > those lectures where Steiner point us in a certain direction and
                      you either
                      > find that direction or you don't. When you discover the hidden
                      meanings for
                      > yourself that is esoteric. Second question theosophy and
                      anthroposophy have a
                      > lot in common except the Christ event is where they stand
                      separate. The
                      > last question I would say, yes of course! The Christ event is
                      where the big
                      > difference is. I have a lot of books on C.W. Leadbeater. He has
                      an entire
                      > different view than Steiner on the Christ but I am not going to
                      throw the baby
                      > out with the bath water and conclude that Leadbeater is unwise.
                      He was
                      > clairvoyant like Steiner and has a lot to offer to people like
                      us. Being an
                      > anthroposophist is not drawing lines between what is and is not.
                      There is too much
                      > grey in between. Find what speaks to you and find your own
                      truth. Steiner
                      > found his and so we are seekers finding our own. Hope that helps
                      somewhat.
                      > ~Chantel
                    • Maurice McCarthy
                      ... Hi Bradford As I see it, from the point of view of ordinary understanding, society begins as a survival strategy. The individual must subserve the whole
                      Message 10 of 10 , Dec 17, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:11:13AM -0000 or thereabouts, holderlin66 wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > we turn the direction of civilisation now, i.e. in this generation
                        > or so, or
                        > live with the consequences forever."

                        > Maurice;
                        >
                        > Care to back that statement up with some storm warnings!!!!
                        >
                        >

                        Hi Bradford

                        As I see it, from the point of view of ordinary understanding, society begins as a survival strategy. The individual must subserve the whole even unto slavery else the whole may perish. The whole, today, is the economic sphere. Economics already IS world unity.

                        As of the last 200 years survival is guaranteed. Survival is no longer the driving force of society. Slowly the (spiritual) needs of the individual take precedence over the needs of the whole. Economics now must subserve the individual. When the community was more important than the individual then communal property was fitting. Individual property (i.e. the means of re-investment in the economy or capital) is a transitional stage to the fulfillment of the deeper needs of the human being.

                        At present our super-cooled societies are nucleating subcultures in abundance - sexual fetish, drugs, "jackass" behaviour (I am not being judgmental here but only observing fact - the fact that individuals are creating their own 'spaces' in which to exercise their yearning for freedom in whatever manner they see and they alone see fit.) Goths, sk8ters, charvas ... multiple dress codes and musics etc. ... every city area has its 'gang' (in a loose not an organised sense) ... and they are all latent conservatives - they like only their own and distrust, dislike or worse all the way to hate and violence everyone else. So I am saying that the war of all against all has already begun.

                        This crushing of the yearnings of the soul is the ultimate reason which produced the ground on which Al Qaeda could be formed. The concentration of wealth in individual hands without cultural controls in place is felt to be crushing human dignity the world over.

                        Yet politically we continue to think that if only the economy were OK everything would fall into place of its own accord. (This residue of materialistic thinking makes most politicians of the present day closet 'commies'. A snide remark but I leave it their for its illustrative power.) At just this point in time we must begin to set up the truly democratic solutions or the combined power of politics and economic coersion may obtain a bind which is unbreakable. They have the Ahrimanic powers at hand. The ultimate result would be the tearing apart of humanity into two separate destinies, failure of the Michaelic cause. I'd guess we may have a couple of generations.

                        Maurice
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.