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

Re: Beware of...

Expand Messages
  • Terence
    ... So mote it be! Terence
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.