Re: Beware of...
- There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
"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.
- 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
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@y...> wrote:
> I have already in my AT posts tried to explainFYI, I read your posts on A_T. Interesting. Still
> 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.
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,I honor that each person has the right to express
> 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.
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 beSo what! Suppose he is as mad as a hatter. Would
> the New World-Teacher of Anthroposophy, and
> (again) more importantly, he is acting upon
> that mad presumption.
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?So what? Would that not indicate that with a beam
> 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.
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
> I have not attended any 12-step meetings, but IOf course addicts and alcoholics in the early
> 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.
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 withI have been clean and sober from mood-altering
> 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.
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 youMy BS meter is finely tuned and calibrated. That is
> at all times, keep it calibrated, keep good
> batteries in it, and set the alarm to LOUD.
why I asked you why you continue to take Joel to
task as the alarm is sounded forth after reading
your homily about Joel.
- --- In email@example.com, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:
>Read the post again Emil and note the word I used
> There are two definitions for "hoopla" in my dictionary. 1.) Boisterous
> or jovial commotion or excitement," and 2.) Talk intended to mislead or
> "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.
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
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. APerhaps this is some advice that you need to follow?
> really good habit to develop would be to use the dictionary frequently.
> Inevitably, when wariness and discernment are called for (and in thisI couldn't tell you where this quote is located in the Bible.
> case with good reason), someone will come back with the Bible
> quote: "...he who is without sin cast the first stone," etc.
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 inNow from my limited perspective, me thinks that a
> regard to myself: no human being is without sin. Self-knowledge is
> sufficient for discernment in this case.
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,My gawd man, it is amazing how you write about yourself!
> careless, at times even thoughtless postings.
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,"Dear me! When you take Joel to task in a public
> 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
- 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
From time to time I'll come back and contribute some posts to this
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "emil_rio" <emil_rio@y...> wrote:
> My posts stand; I do not take them back or regret them. And may theySo mote it be!
> help beginners - along the difficult path of Anthroposophy - to be very
- 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
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
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"
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:
Thinking, which is seeking freedom, will want more to form its own
conclusions about matters and will resist letting live in the soul too
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
- 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
< ... >
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
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
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?
--- In email@example.com, Stephen <celestial_vision@c...> wrote:
> 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
Out of curiosity, if you willingto answer, what is
Anthropsophy about to you?