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

Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
    • 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 2 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          --- 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 4 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 24 , Jan 7, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 24 , Jan 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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 8 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 24 , Jan 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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.