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

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • Maurice McCarthy
    Bah! People! Wouldn t it be easy without them! M
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 6, 2006
      Bah! People!

      Wouldn't it be easy without them!

      M
    • Robert Mason
      ... all this hoopla about Joel s persona coming from Mason and Emil. Is there not a saying to the effect that he who is without sin cast the first stone? Are
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 6, 2006
        To Terence, who wrote:

        >>Tis an interesting phenomenon that there is
        all this hoopla about Joel's persona coming
        from Mason and Emil. Is there not a saying to
        the effect that "he who is without sin cast the
        first stone?" Are both Mason and Emil
        guileless? Having never met these persons, I
        can not say; however, in the Age of the
        Consciousness Soul, I have my suspicions that
        neither Mason or Emil are beyond reproach. Then
        why the censure of Joel?<<

        Robert writes:

        I have already in my AT posts tried to explain
        why I wrote and posted what you call my
        "censure of Joel". (Tried, at considerable
        length and in considerable detail, especially
        in my long post to Stephen Clarke.) None of my
        explanations depend upon an assumption or
        premise that I am "guileless", or
        guiltless. You may be of the opinion that my
        explanations are somehow inadequate, but I see
        no indication here that you have read and
        seriously considered them. If you would cite
        them and tell me exactly why you (presumably)
        consider them to be inadequate, then maybe we
        could proceed from there. But now, I don't see
        any point in merely repeating essentially what
        I have already written.

        Terence wrote:

        >>We are taught that for every step forward we
        make in spiritual development that we take
        three steps forward in character development.
        My question is, "what kind of progress are we
        making when we continue to visit the past?" Do
        we not need to let the dead bury the dead,
        while the living create the future?<<

        Robert writes:

        As I already said in my previous post here,
        this matter belongs not just to the past but
        also to the present. Joel still posts on his
        website the "Perspective" essay; this brings
        the whole "Maitreya" thing right into the
        present: he is still saying it. More
        importantly, he is still "doing it"'; he is
        still acting from the same, sick mind-set --
        acting upon other people.

        Terence wrote:

        >>I have never met Joel either, yet by his own
        admisssion [sic] he does not claim to be
        guileless or without sin or shame.<<

        Robert writes:

        But he does claim (obliquely, deviously) to be
        the New World-Teacher of Anthroposophy, and
        (again) more importantly, he is acting upon
        that mad presumption.

        Terence wrote:

        >>Robert and Emil, are you not more than your
        name? More than your persona quirks and
        character defects? Come on man, let the sublect
        [sic] of Joel and his quirks and defects alone.
        Enough is enough! As I read what you have
        written on the A_T list, you are telling more
        about yourself than you are of Joel. Can you
        not see the beam in your own eye?<<

        Robert writes:

        I suppose I have beams enough, but so what?
        That doesn't mean that I can't add two plus two
        and come out somewhere between three and five.
        And it doesn't mean that I have to swallow all
        the BS that anyone might want to feed me.
        Still less does it mean that I must stand idly
        by while someone is feeding BS to other people.

        Terence wrote:

        >>Be aware! Be alive. Let the dead bury the
        dead.

        >>Have you ever attended a 12 Step meeting?<<

        Robert writes:

        I have not attended any 12-step meetings, but I
        am aware of the doctrine. I have done some
        "group work" of a less doctrinaire and more
        intensive kind. And to a large extent, my
        experiences in and around such groups have
        educated me about the kinds of tricks that some
        people (especially manipulative addicts) will
        play, about the BS they will pitch, and about
        the depths of the perversity that madness can
        reach. I have learned to ask questions and to
        be alert to evasions. I have learned:
        that talk is cheap,
        that actions speak louder than words,
        that ye shall know them by their fruits,
        and to keep my eye on the bottom line.

        -- I'm guessing that you are struggling with
        some kind of addiction and working with some
        kind of 12-step program. I hope that you are
        aware that such "meetings" have their dangers
        as well as their benefits. (Kinda like e-
        groups.) You can do some good "work" and meet
        some helpful people there, but you might also
        meet some "users", in the other sense of the
        word. Such people will try to run all sorts of
        tricky, manipulative games on you, and if you
        let them get very close to you, you will likely
        regret it bitterly. (That's a big reason why
        some "self-help" groups have the rule that the
        members may have no social relations with each
        other outside the meetings.) It does seem that
        many "users" are just that, in both senses of
        the word.

        I hope that you keep your BS meter with you
        at all times, keep it calibrated, keep good
        batteries in it, and set the alarm to LOUD.

        Robert Mason




        __________________________________________
        Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
        Just $16.99/mo. or less.
        dsl.yahoo.com
      • emil_rio
        There are two definitions for hoopla in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous or jovial commotion or excitement, and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or confuse.
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
          There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
          or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
          confuse."

          "Guile" is defined as "Insidious, treacherous cunning; deceit."

          "Hoopla" in no way defines these posts, Re: Beware of...; "Guile" is
          entirely inappropriate, by the above definition.

          My recommendation again is far less carelessness on these posts. A
          really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.

          Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in this
          case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
          quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.

          This is for the record: I am without guile, as is Robert M. And in
          regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
          sufficient for discernment in this case.

          What is bad about people on these lists (Maurice) are their quick,
          careless, at times even thoughtless postings.

          Time to review those 8 steps from "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds,"
          especially: think before speaking or writing. And a course in "Creative
          Writing" or "Writing" 101 is highly recommended. Or perhaps "Public
          Forum Postings" 101. The last could be approached selflessly, in the
          interests of Anthroposophy.
        • Joel Wendt
          Dear Robert, How about we do this...you and I talk, and you demonstrate that you have the courage to face me directly with your accusations, instead of just
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
            Dear Robert,

            How about we do this...you and I talk, and you demonstrate that you
            have the courage to face me directly with your accusations, instead of
            just coming on a list and saying to everyone else "run away from joel".
            How about you treat me as a person, and speak directly to me.

            At the same time, if you actually do this, don't expect me to reply
            to long messages. Take small points and make them, and then listen to
            my responses - actually listen to my responses and respond back.

            There really is no point and repeating the past of huge essay-like
            posts, as if you were trying to make an argument in front of Congress.

            Speak to me, I'm real, I'm here, and be prepared to write about
            facts concerning which you have direct knowledge. Conclusions and
            claims are not only useless, they are baseless. Anyone can claim
            anything, just as anyone can write a long shotgun essay full of many
            assumptions and clever bits of inuendo.

            If your really consider this a serious matter, treat it with respect.

            In addition, lets clearly label this discussion in the subject line
            (as I did above), so that folks who have no interest can delete it or
            ignore it.

            warm regards,
            joel
          • BAle2391@aol.com
            Dear Robert and Joel: Steiner s philosophy, Thinking itself becomes a body which draws into itself as its soul the Spirit of the Universe. It means
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
              Dear Robert and Joel:
                  Steiner's philosophy, "Thinking itself becomes a body which draws into itself as its soul the Spirit of the Universe." "It means putting force, life into thinking, through thinking, within thinking." Could you share this Top down path as opposed to the old path, from the bottom up (kundalini). Help us students (neophytes, novices) with input, things that worked for you in this talking to each other. Thank you...
                                                                              Adios,
                                                                                  Bart
            • Terence
              ... FYI, I read your posts on A_T. Interesting. Still am wondering why you choose to be the champion and take it upon yourself to castigate Joel unless you are
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@y...> wrote:

                > I have already in my AT posts tried to explain
                > why I wrote and posted what you call my
                > "censure of Joel". (Tried, at considerable
                > length and in considerable detail, especially
                > in my long post to Stephen Clarke.) None of my
                > explanations depend upon an assumption or
                > premise that I am "guileless", or
                > guiltless. You may be of the opinion that my
                > explanations are somehow inadequate, but I see
                > no indication here that you have read and
                > seriously considered them. If you would cite
                > them and tell me exactly why you (presumably)
                > consider them to be inadequate, then maybe we
                > could proceed from there. But now, I don't see
                > any point in merely repeating essentially what
                > I have already written.

                FYI, I read your posts on A_T. Interesting. Still
                am wondering why you choose to be the champion and
                take it upon yourself to castigate Joel unless you
                are one of those rare humans who are guileless.

                > As I already said in my previous post here,
                > this matter belongs not just to the past but
                > also to the present. Joel still posts on his
                > website the "Perspective" essay; this brings
                > the whole "Maitreya" thing right into the
                > present: he is still saying it. More
                > importantly, he is still "doing it"'; he is
                > still acting from the same, sick mind-set --
                > acting upon other people.

                I honor that each person has the right to express
                themselves; however, your persistent attempts to
                characterize Joel, or any one for that matter, as
                having a sick mind-set, appears to be a chronic
                problem that borders on vindictiveness.

                > But he does claim (obliquely, deviously) to be
                > the New World-Teacher of Anthroposophy, and
                > (again) more importantly, he is acting upon
                > that mad presumption.

                So what! Suppose he is as mad as a hatter. Would
                this not be a lesson that he has to learn either
                during this incarnation or during excarnation?

                What if Joel is the New World-teacher of
                Anthroposophy? Do we not, as individuals, need to
                inwardly accept or reject that premise for
                ourselves? is that not our responsibility to read
                what he wrote and then after due diligence come to
                our own decision? Of course this is true.

                Your argument, as I recall, centers around
                protecting those folks who are less learned from
                Joel, is this not so?

                > I suppose I have beams enough, but so what?
                > That doesn't mean that I can't add two plus two
                > and come out somewhere between three and five.
                > And it doesn't mean that I have to swallow all
                > the BS that anyone might want to feed me.
                > Still less does it mean that I must stand idly
                > by while someone is feeding BS to other people.

                So what? Would that not indicate that with a beam
                in your eye that you might be unable to see clearly
                because of the beam?

                Of course you do not have to swallow the BS of
                others. If you did so, then the lessons that you
                will have to learn because of your swallowing is a
                lesson that you will have to learn in this
                incarnation, or in excarnation and the next
                incarnation. Life is an LE (learning experience).
                Learn now. Learn later. But we all will have to
                learn the lesson.

                Now when you get to the part of attempting to
                interfere in the lessons that others need to learn,
                that is a whole other matter. In my opinion, unless
                one is guileless, guiltless and a host of other
                words like: blameless, not to blame, without fault,
                above reproach, above suspicion, in the clear,
                unimpeachable, irreproachable, faultless, sinless,
                spotless, immaculate, unsullied, uncorrupted,
                undefiled, untainted, unblemished, untarnished,
                impeccable. then one has the necessary qualities of
                heart and head to intercede in the karma of others.
                You know, someone like Christ. Are you that kind of
                person, Robert?

                > I have not attended any 12-step meetings, but I
                > am aware of the doctrine. I have done some
                > "group work" of a less doctrinaire and more
                > intensive kind. And to a large extent, my
                > experiences in and around such groups have
                > educated me about the kinds of tricks that some
                > people (especially manipulative addicts) will
                > play, about the BS they will pitch, and about
                > the depths of the perversity that madness can
                > reach. I have learned to ask questions and to
                > be alert to evasions. I have learned:
                > that talk is cheap,
                > that actions speak louder than words,
                > that ye shall know them by their fruits,
                > and to keep my eye on the bottom line.

                Of course addicts and alcoholics in the early
                stages of recovery are manipulative and devious. I
                have been in recovery for 20 years and still met
                folks with long term sobriety who have not outgrown
                those character traits. Truth to be told, I met
                Anthroposophist, Theosophists, Christians, Muslims,
                Born Agains, etc, who are manipulative and devious.
                The Shadow knows no limits and has no favorites.

                You are writing about them, just as you write about
                Joel...with prejudice. How is it that you see so
                clearly? What stage of the evolutionary spiral do
                you find yourself posited upon that qualifies you
                to judge others?

                You say you have learned that talk is cheap. Is not
                writing about others also cheap? That actions speak
                louder than words. Why so many words written about
                Joel? By their fruits...where can we find the
                produce of your mind that is not aimed directly at
                the personal criticism or judgement of another?

                What is the bottom line here? Is it about persons;
                about persons' relationship to the Spiritual
                hierarchy; about persons' relationship to Christ and
                Michael; does the bottom line ultimately refer to
                the Earth and humanities responsibility toward the
                Earth's future incarnation as a Sun Being? What is
                the bottom line for you Robert?

                > -- I'm guessing that you are struggling with
                > some kind of addiction and working with some
                > kind of 12-step program. I hope that you are
                > aware that such "meetings" have their dangers
                > as well as their benefits. (Kinda like e-
                > groups.) You can do some good "work" and meet
                > some helpful people there, but you might also
                > meet some "users", in the other sense of the
                > word. Such people will try to run all sorts of
                > tricky, manipulative games on you, and if you
                > let them get very close to you, you will likely
                > regret it bitterly. (That's a big reason why
                > some "self-help" groups have the rule that the
                > members may have no social relations with each
                > other outside the meetings.) It does seem that
                > many "users" are just that, in both senses of
                > the word.

                I have been clean and sober from mood-altering
                chemicals of a solid, liquid or gaseous form for 20
                years. For 18 years I have help countless hundreds
                of people move towards becoming physically vital, emotionally
                stable and mentally clear about who they are and
                their relationship to the Greater Whole. I
                completed the Saturn cycle two years ago.

                Hell, Robert, the world is filled with users! So
                what else is new that you can broadcast?

                There is a pattern unfolding in your writing. I
                wonder if you are aware of it?

                > I hope that you keep your BS meter with you
                > at all times, keep it calibrated, keep good
                > batteries in it, and set the alarm to LOUD.

                My BS meter is finely tuned and calibrated. That is
                why I asked you why you continue to take Joel to
                task as the alarm is sounded forth after reading
                your homily about Joel.

                Duh!

                Terence
              • Terence
                ... Read the post again Emil and note the word I used was guileless. Guileless: innocent and without deception. Taken in that context, I asked the question.
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                  --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
                  > or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
                  > confuse."
                  >
                  > "Guile" is defined as "Insidious, treacherous cunning; deceit."
                  >
                  > "Hoopla" in no way defines these posts, Re: Beware of...; "Guile" is
                  > entirely inappropriate, by the above definition.

                  Read the post again Emil and note the word I used
                  was "guileless." Guileless: innocent and without
                  deception. Taken in that context, I asked the
                  question. "Are both Mason and Emil guileless?"
                  Are you without deception, Emil when you write
                  against Joel? You are antipathetic are you not?
                  It appears that you have an axe to grind! That
                  you have guile: cunning, craftiness, craft,
                  artfulness, art, artifice, wiliness, slyness,
                  deviousness; wiles, ploys, schemes, stratagems,
                  maneuvers, tricks, subterfuges, ruses; deception,
                  deceit, duplicity, underhandedness,
                  double-dealing, and trickery all about your post to
                  this board.

                  As to hoopla: excitement surrounding an event or
                  situation, esp. when considered to be unnecessary
                  fuss. As I witness the antagonistic tone of your email,
                  I see an unneccessary fuss being made about Joel.

                  > My recommendation again is far less carelessness on these posts. A
                  > really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.

                  Perhaps this is some advice that you need to follow?

                  > Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in this
                  > case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
                  > quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.

                  I couldn't tell you where this quote is located in the Bible.
                  As a statement, does it not carry meaning that needs to be
                  more closly examined? Why throw dirt in another man's face?
                  What is in it for you? What do you gain?

                  > This is for the record: I am without guile, as is Robert M. And in
                  > regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
                  > sufficient for discernment in this case.

                  Now from my limited perspective, me thinks that a
                  person who is without guile or guileless would
                  think twice about disparaging another person
                  whilst hiding behind the key board in
                  cyber-space. Should not the comments that you
                  made re Joel be made to his face, rather than
                  through this medium of exchange where every one
                  reads what you write about another person? What
                  would happen if you took Joel to task like a
                  mensch and posted directly to him offline?
                  Mensch: a person of integrity and honor.

                  > What is bad about people on these lists (Maurice) are their quick,
                  > careless, at times even thoughtless postings.

                  My gawd man, it is amazing how you write about yourself!
                  Tis an interesting phenomenon. A pattern is being revealed. Can you see it?

                  > Time to review those 8 steps from "Knowledge of the Higher Worlds,"
                  > especially: think before speaking or writing. And a course in "Creative
                  > Writing" or "Writing" 101 is highly recommended. Or perhaps "Public
                  > Forum Postings" 101. The last could be approached selflessly, in the
                  > interests of Anthroposophy.

                  Dear me! When you take Joel to task in a public
                  forum whose purpose is to explore Anthroposophy,
                  pray tell me how what you post is serving the
                  interests of Anthropsophy? Your posts appear to
                  me to be more of the caliber of self-serving judgementalism.

                  Curious to me that you do not address me by name in this post.
                  Am I a non-person in your eyes, too? A mensch will look me in the
                  eye and talk to me directly to my face and look me straight in the eye
                  (in this case it would be off-line).

                  For the record, my Christian name is Terence. Address me by this
                  name if you want me to continue this argument. Argument: an exchange
                  of diverging or opposite views; a reason or set of reasons given with
                  the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

                  Terence

                  ---
                  Ahriman always seeks to reduce the threefold
                  element within Man to a dyad and to remove the
                  mediating heart element, rendering the human
                  organism one merely of intelligence and will.
                  -- Steiner
                • Stephen
                  All, I am new to Anthroposophy and have been enjoying the posts. It is only natural that someone new, like me, might attempt to contact someone on the list who
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
                    All,
                    I am new to Anthroposophy and have been enjoying the posts. It is only
                    natural that someone new, like me, might attempt to contact someone on
                    the list who appears knowledgeable for advice. I have been involved in a
                    few other lists and meet both good and bad people, so I have some
                    experience. If you look at Steiner's writings alone, it is a daunting
                    task to decide where to start. A few weeks back, I was reading the posts
                    of Joel and was somewhat impressed. He had me pretty convinced to start
                    with epistemology, and the Philosophy of Spiritual Activity. I contacted
                    him privately and told him I enjoyed his posts, he ignored that. I went
                    to his website and starting reading ... there was knowledge and there
                    was something else, something that was beginning to bother me. Then
                    Emil's post and warning came out. I appreciate that. If someone has been
                    around and has a history with all of this, and wants to lend some
                    advice, then I think that is great. It is up to me how to take it.
                    Hopefully that is the end of it. But then people like Terrence and some
                    others feel the need to defend someone they don't even know, and attack
                    those who have tried to warn new people like me, in my opinion they show
                    themselves very badly this way, as it has made matters so much worse.
                    Then Maurice posts a short comment, and I was disappointed as up to that
                    point Maurice seemed to be very knowledgeable.
                    Emil and Robert, thank you very much for the warning, I don't feel
                    anything negative from it. I only feel like you were truly trying to
                    help. I have worked with other people in the past who I at first thought
                    seemed knowledgeable, only to waste time and be led down dead end paths.
                    Joel, I don't know what to think. Please keep posting of your knowledge
                    and do whatever it is you are trying to do on this list.
                    Terrence, I don't know what to say to you, but something seems very wrong.
                    Maurice, I will try to expect less from you and take what you have to
                    offer.
                    For what it is worth, I started with Theosophy, Steiner has a gift for
                    explaining these things - body, soul, spirit - I have never heard these
                    terms presented the way he uses them.
                    - Stephen
                  • emil_rio
                    Terence: elists are a means of key-board cyberspace communications, and there s really no getting around that. Suggesting that I m hiding behind a
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
                      Terence: elists are a means of "key-board" "cyberspace" communications,
                      and there's really no getting around that. Suggesting that I'm "hiding
                      behind a keyboard" is ridiculous.

                      Now, my posts of warning in regard to the problems of AP's, especially
                      beginners, getting seriously sidetracked by Joel Wendt, (and the mix-up
                      of AP with "Tomberg"), especially if they come to or search for answers
                      in the literature of Anthroposophy through the computer, stands. It's
                      an objective warning and it's for the sake of others; it has nothing to
                      do with myself, and it's not personal. Actually more telling than
                      Robert Mason's posts on Joel Wendt, are Joel Wendt's answers.

                      Arguing or even a discussion with yourself, in light of your "attack,"
                      unfortunately based in obvious emotionalism - which is not appropriate
                      on the computer under any circumstances - will not resolve anything.
                      You'll likely get cleverer and cleverer, more and more insulting, with
                      continued semantic twisting, etc etc and keep pulling up cards from
                      your sleeve... I invariably lose at these games. (They constitute a
                      large measure of overall elist communications, too.)

                      It is admirable that you take up for your friend, Joel Wendt.

                      I really must stop posting regularly on this elist, because I have a
                      lot of work to do, and these posts can drain energy that I can't spare.

                      So go ahead and have the last word, Terence; you can call me every
                      nasty name in the book of nasty names, you can even threaten me
                      physically. (However, 63-year-old women can be surprisingly formidable
                      when physically threatened...) It really doesn't matter.

                      My posts stand; I do not take them back or regret them. And may they
                      help beginners - along the difficult path of Anthroposophy - to be very
                      discerning.

                      From time to time I'll come back and contribute some posts to this
                      elist.
                    • Terence
                      ... So mote it be! Terence
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
                        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:

                        > My posts stand; I do not take them back or regret them. And may they
                        > help beginners - along the difficult path of Anthroposophy - to be very
                        > discerning.

                        So mote it be!

                        Terence
                      • Joel Wendt
                        Dear List-mates, Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don t want to stand behind what they write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                          Dear List-mates,

                          Leaving aside that Emil and Robert don't want to stand behind what they
                          write here, lets confront a lingering question implied somewhat in
                          Robert's last post, where he admits he doesn't know much and then goes
                          on to create his own form of the general confusion in the
                          Anthroposophical Movement...

                          First, please lets be honest about the last 100 years of
                          anthroposophical activity...people are going to have gotten a lot of
                          stuff just wrong. Not because they didn't try, but because we are
                          human, and make errors, and once Steiner died the best corrective for
                          our errors changed his field of operations. If you wanted Steiner's
                          help, it wasn't going to be found in his books, but in the inner forum
                          of ones own soul, but people went to his books - to the past of dead
                          thought and not to the living thought available to our own thinking
                          activity...

                          Robert seems to confuse the path of PoF with Knowledge of Higher Worlds,
                          as if these were the same thing, which they are not. Don't have to
                          believe me, by the way, you can read Lowndes' Enliveninig the Chakra of
                          the Heart, wherein in the last two chapters the difference between these
                          two paths and the significance of this difference is carefully introduced...

                          Now we are starting a second hundred years of anthroposophical activity
                          (this is quite significant, because Christ works Century to Century in
                          33 year rhythms (see Ben-Aharon's The Spiritual Event of the Twentieth
                          Century). Our condition as a spiritual movement is fraught with
                          dangers. The cumulative failures of the 20th Century must be faced (if
                          we don't, it becomes the same flaw that undoes a student of esotericism
                          who refuses to look honestly at his own past).

                          The archetype of these failures lives in the work of S.O. Prokofieff,
                          who is a very nice man, very sincere, hard working, and something of an
                          intellectual genius without a doubt. He is the perfect example of what
                          happens if people don't make a connection to Steiner's early works on
                          spiriual freedom, moral imagination and picture thinking. Let me lay
                          out the general shape of the basic flaw that permiates almost all of
                          anthroposophical work, including Prokofieff and even Robert's efforts on
                          Ahriman ( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1105/ahriman.htm ).

                          Rudolf Steiner's lectures are not much more than highly accurate maps of
                          spiritual realities. Anyone who has had real spiritual experiences on
                          the anthroposophical path knows this to be the case. The actual
                          territory is so far outside what words can convey that it becomes
                          obvious that the lectures produce a serious temptation to the soul.

                          Steiner himself, in Occult Science an Outline, does not speak even of
                          that book as providing knowledge to the reader, but only
                          "understanding". This is so for most of what Steiner wrote and lectured
                          about - our "understanding" is enriched, and this has positive
                          consequences for the soul AS LONG AS we don't mistake "understanding"
                          for "knowledge".

                          Yet, this is precisely how the anthroposophical movement has come to
                          treat the "understanding" that Steiner has given us, and we have then
                          (by this fatal weakness) made of his work in our souls not anthroposophy
                          but Steinerism. People who are believers in Steinerism, and haven't
                          then followed the Path of Cognition laid out in the epistemologies, then
                          don't "know" their own souls well enough to realize that this huge
                          content of Steiner-thought they have consumed has become a kind of prison.

                          The clue that this is the case is the enormous frequency of the phrase:
                          "Steiner said".

                          Thinking, which is seeking freedom, will want more to form its own
                          conclusions about matters and will resist letting live in the soul too
                          much Steiner-thought.

                          The real arena of spiritual activity is within us. The true battle is
                          fought there, not in the outer world of the senses.

                          At the beginning of this new century no one should be surprised that
                          within the anthroposophical movement itself a struggle is arising,
                          between that which has actually followed Steiner's Path of Cognition,
                          and those who couldn't quite get it, but now want to justify their own
                          understandable weaknesses by attacking the truth.

                          The clue here is the weaknesses of their approach. Emil and Robert
                          can't actually stand here in this forum and speak to what they don't
                          know. At best they can seek to tar and feather that which would make
                          them face what hasn't been made into knowledge in their own souls, but
                          which they would rather protect at whatever cost to others.

                          There are consequences to our actions. As seekers of the spirit, the
                          most significant actions in this regard are inwardly in the soul, not
                          outwardly in the social world. We can only seek the spirit within, via
                          the activity of the own spirit in the own soul. There lies the "narrow
                          gate", and the endless quoting of Steiner can only obscure and make more
                          difficult this essential work.

                          So far (in the last century), the anthroposophical movement has been
                          immature. Now it is time for it to grow up, a process certain to be
                          painful.

                          warm regards,
                          joel
                        • Terence
                          In the not too distant past, I happened upon an interesting old chap by the name of Stanley Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special perspective to share.
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                            In the not too distant past, I happened upon an
                            interesting old chap by the name of Stanley
                            Messenger, an octogenarian who has a special
                            perspective to share. I would encourage a visit to
                            his site. Copy and past everything between the
                            < ... >

                            <http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/GlastonburyArchive/messenger/sm-lucifer.html>

                            I would call particular attention to : *Claim Two.
                            Here's another even more frequently heard
                            statement. "Oh! I can't read The Philosophy of
                            Freedom. That's far beyond me. I need to experience
                            spirit in action in the world."*

                            I am especailly fond of what Stanley writes near
                            the end of his letter; *... Well, in the first place
                            no-one approaching initiate knowledge for the first
                            time will be denied human as well as super-sensible
                            help and support, though, in the absence of the
                            Society, it is more likely to be through the loving
                            recognition of individuals than through formal
                            study-groups with official auspices. But there is
                            something more. We have a School of Spiritual
                            Science. It was set up under the old dispensation,
                            and it has remained incomplete. Anthroposophy
                            didn't transform the mind-set of the pre-millennial
                            western world, though it had a profound hidden
                            effect upon it. Have you thought, as a member of
                            that school, that it might be possible, in drawing
                            a line under it, to graduate from that school?
                            Perhaps no-one would get first-class honours. But
                            have you thought that Rudolf Steiner, who with Ita
                            Wegman, is now intensely occupied with his next
                            world task, and longs to be released from the
                            tragic karma of anthroposophy, might, if asked,
                            happily give pass degrees to those who ask, and
                            release both himself and the rest of us from what
                            may otherwise become an esoteric blind-alley? There
                            is so much love in the New World. We could all go
                            on and join them*

                            If we continue to quote Steiner and use
                            Steinerism's rather than think for ourselves and
                            express oursleves as best as we can, as Joel
                            mentions in his recent post, are we not parts of a
                            binding agent for the future of the soul-spirit of
                            RS and the next phase of his work? And are we not
                            also binding ourselves to the past history of
                            Anthroposophy?

                            Having read the parts, pieces and parcels of
                            Spiritual Science extensively for years I am
                            intimatley aware of the necessity to comprehend the
                            significant difference between understanding and
                            knowledge.

                            May Stanley's message be of assistance to help you
                            become unfettered from the yoke of understanding
                            anthroposophy....especially if you are a Beginner.
                            May as well start off on the right foot, eh?

                            Terence
                          • Terence
                            ... SNIP ... Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your own business, as what I wrote doesn t include you. Keep on reading, asking questions,
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                              --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@c...> wrote:

                              SNIP

                              > Terrence, I don't know what to say to you, but something seems very wrong.

                              Do not lose any sleep over this Stephen. Mind your
                              own business, as what I wrote doesn't include you.

                              Keep on reading, asking questions, meditating, pray
                              and by all means stay inside your skin and look at
                              you and your relationship with people you are in
                              relationship with, and with the burgeoning relationship
                              you are having with your soul. Anthroposophy is not
                              about persons. We all have our shadow or
                              doppleganger to contend with until we meet the
                              Lower Guardian of the Threshold. When you get to
                              that place in your soul-spirit growth you will
                              recognize the truth that Anthroposophy is not about
                              persons.

                              Out of curiosity, if you willingto answer, what is
                              Anthropsophy about to you?

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