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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.