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

Re: sexual magic and gnosis

Expand Messages
  • 888
    Hello Art, ... For information on how and why this is now decadent I always suggest Moses by Emil Bock. In ancient times the link between sex and religion
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 3, 1999
      Hello Art,
      >The question of sex magic is an issue on the list I started about three
      >months ago,

      For information on how and why this is now decadent I always suggest
      "Moses" by Emil Bock. In ancient times the link between sex and religion
      was par for the course, but there came a time when it's use in this way
      could only lead to error and illness -mental and bodily. One day I must
      make a summary of the pertinent points in Bock's book.

      Rudolf Steiner always sugested working with the upper chakras only- the
      root of the nose, throat and heart. This is referred to as seizing the
      the snake by the head rather than the tail and leads to a free
      development. It is not asceticism however, it is just that one doesn't
      access the spiritual by the use of bodily forces such as sex, breathing
      and narcotics. It is true that in the early days RS did recommend
      breathing exercises to some of his pupils, but he prefered that
      breathing altered itself naturally.

      As I posted on my spiritualscience list:
      "Just as we cannot feed our physical existence purely by targeting
      spiritual causality, we can neither invoke the spiritual forces to
      coincide with us purely by physical means."

      All of the above however, does not discount the sacredness of sex.

      Here Peter Koenig's explanation from his site:
      http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
      "He repeatedly states [RS] that esoteric training should be based on
      thinking, and not bodily forces (as in the O.T.O.). In this, Steiner is
      most obviously referring to hypnotism, mediumship, and Yogic breathing,
      but also, presumably, to sexual energies.

      The crucial point is whether consciousness is controlled by bodily
      forces or whether the body is controlled by the spirit-consciousness of
      the individual Ego. "Eurythmy" and "Speech-Formation" are later artistic
      applications of the initiation-knowledge gained by Steiner, as ways of
      bringing the spirit into the physical, not the physical into the
      spiritual.
      Steiner considers the Misraim rituals building the bridge between the
      Invisible and the Visible: "downwards" and not "upwards" as with the
      libertine gnostics. Steiner's Chakra exercises operate from above
      downward. It is the heart which is vedantically considered as the main
      chakra and not, yogically, the solar plexus. "

      Development and empowerment are one thing, but health should not be
      overlooked.


      >sexual energy to attain spiritual progress somewhat like the
      left-handed
      >tantrics).

      As I said before, Blavatsky also denounced these practices. It is
      rumoured that the learned Hindu FTS Subba Row died as a result of
      tantric practices.

      "Gnosticism" covers a lot of things, for after all it only means
      "knowledge". There are forms of Gnosticism that RS defines as Luciferic.
      These depise the world - "rotten place" - just as Lucifer was not keen
      on Creation in the first place.

      Fond Regards,
      Bruce
    • elaine121@xxxx.xxx
      Hello Art(Gregory), Bruce in Oz, and all, Thanks for the discussion of sex magic (though i am not sure what this is, but assume it is similar to eastern
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 4, 1999
        Hello Art(Gregory), Bruce in Oz, and all,



        Thanks for the discussion of 'sex magic' (though i am not sure what this
        is, but assume it is similar
        to eastern tantrism, as mentioned). What interests
        me more are the broader issues to which Bruce's post points, and what
        Steiner has taught about these.



        I have some questions here (and some comments, as well). So, i will
        quote Bruce
        here and raise my questions and comments as
        i/we read along.



        >
        >For information on how and why this is now decadent I always suggest
        >"Moses" by Emil Bock.



        I've not read Emil Bock for years, and in all
        my moving, i no longer have anything of his.
        In any case, i found him wonderfully lucid and
        heartful when i read him years ago.



        >In ancient times the link between sex and
        >religion
        >was par for the course, but there came a time when it's use in this
        >way
        >could only lead to error and illness -mental and bodily.




        "The link between sex and religion"? Perhaps you
        might say more about exactly what *link* you refer to, Bruce. Later in
        your post you say (and i agree)
        that sex is sacred. Yet, if i understand you
        correctly, you are saying that Steiner has taught
        that use of the 'lower' bodily functions, and
        letting the 'lower' chakras direct our spiritual
        work is a decadent and even dangerous practice.



        How so exactly?--



        I have this question especially about breathing
        practice and that chakra. (It becomes even more
        unclear to me when you speak and separate
        heart and lung; some systems see these as part of
        one chakra, thus how can one elevate the heart
        and not include the lung in the process? From what
        *little* i know, it seems that breathing and heart
        functions are pretty closely related.)







        >Rudolf Steiner always sugested working with the upper chakras only-
        >the
        >root of the nose, throat and heart. This is referred to as seizing the
        >the snake by the head rather than the tail and leads to a free
        >development. It is not asceticism however, it is just that one doesn't
        >access the spiritual by the use of bodily forces such as sex,
        >breathing
        >and narcotics.







        Again, i do not understand this separation of heart
        and breathing functions.



        More, on the practical side of things: wouldn't
        it be difficult for most people to focus on
        heart chakra without going through the attention
        to breathing. Breathing practice (cental to yogic practice of the east,
        if understand rightly) is
        attended to because breath is what is there, obvious, more readily
        available. Most people, it seems to me (and i include myself) would not
        ordinarily find control of heartbeat a readily
        available practice. What is your understanding
        here?--Perhaps i am lost or lingering in darkness
        when i attend to my breathing.





        I actually do follow a breathing practice that
        Steiner gave. Is this one that he gave , as you
        say below, initially to certain pupils, and then
        abandoned?



        ((What i refer to is a breathing
        practice one can read of in, for example,
        _Guidance in Esoteric Training_, with references to yogic practice, and
        many other exercises, including
        the morning waking exercises.--The practice is
        to breathe, as a morning exercise, to breathe in
        to a certain count, breathe out twice as long,
        hold the breath three times as long....etc.
        Are you saying that Steiner later abandoned this
        teaching?))





        You write:


        >It is true that in the early days RS did recommend
        >breathing exercises to some of his pupils, but he prefered that
        >breathing altered itself naturally.




        What does 'natural' mean in this day and age,
        with all the stresses, chaos or schedules, eating,
        etc.? Would natural breathing result, then, from
        a more rhythmic life? Is that the idea?



        And how does one attend the heart chakra?



        I know there are exercises for the 'nose' or
        third eye chakra. But what ones did Steiner
        recommend?




        >As I posted on my spiritualscience list:
        >"Just as we cannot feed our physical existence purely by targeting
        >spiritual causality, we can neither invoke the spiritual forces to
        >coincide with us purely by physical means."






        What is 'purely physical'? Isn't the physical
        always a manifestation, a revelation, of
        the soul, and the health or ill of the soul,
        the connection to or separateness from Spirit?



        Ie., yellowish irises, skin indicate perhaps a liver ailment, and the
        liver's imbalance signals an
        imbalance of the soul, in it's effort to realize
        Spirit/Self.




        Even sex is not 'purely physical' (thus,
        i agree with you that it is sacred). Even a
        rapacious sexual act (to take an extreme) hides
        some hunger for Spirit, some imbalance in the
        soul crying out for help.--Not, then, to mention
        the cry for union between to devoted lovers....
        This is not 'purely physical', and surely
        neither is *breathing*.





        Actually, isn't there a teaching somewhere
        (of Steiner) that every time we touch we call
        up one or more planets? An anthroposophic
        massage therapist (friend who worked with me
        in South AFrica) speaks of a Venus touch,
        a Mercury touch (i believe), and so on with
        other planetary touches, evocations.--




        -- Touch
        is prayer, not only in healing massage, but
        also in sex between lovers (those who love),
        between friends, between parent and child
        (thus, the kind
        of touch is so important, and care must be
        taken that the touch is not invasive, or
        depleting of the energies of freedom).



        On your comments above, you write:

        >
        >All of the above however, does not discount the sacredness of sex.



        Yes, we agree.
        -------------


        >
        >Here Peter Koenig's explanation from his site:
        >http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
        >"He repeatedly states [RS] that esoteric training should be based on
        >thinking, and not bodily forces (as in the O.T.O.). In this, Steiner
        >is
        >most obviously referring to hypnotism, mediumship, and Yogic
        >breathing,
        >but also, presumably, to sexual energies.




        In these regards, i doubt that i can truly call
        myself anthroposophist (though i am a member of
        the Society). I don't know whether Steiner taught
        as Peter Koenig indicates (and i don't have web
        access at the moment). But I am *not* ready to
        say that 'thinking' is the only way.




        I know
        that Steiner meant by 'thinking' something
        rather complex (see _Philosophy of Spriritual
        Activity_ aka, _Philosophy of Freedom_), but
        whatever he meant, it seems many anthroposophists
        take his teaching to point to something
        of an intellectual way, with some heart thrown
        in. Now, some anthroposophists give lip
        service to a holistic approach (of which
        intellect is only one part), yet the
        reality (in my experience with anthropops on three different continents)
        is that there seems to be a mistrust of
        altered states, and these states are
        seen as atavistic, out of date, not
        appropriate to the modern way and the
        scientific revolution.




        --There's a strength in that (the intellect),
        of course. The intellect brings many gifts
        to Earth. And there is danger, so to say,
        in entering altered states like mediumistic
        trances, hypnosis, etc. Some of these states
        are not about freedom, consciousness, and are,
        indeed, dangerous and unreliable.--Yet, having
        said all that, i am not ready to discount
        the approach to spirit through these altered
        states of breathing, drumming, herb ingestion, etc.




        Crystal reading, tarot, palmistry, shamanism --these may
        exist in decadent forms today, and yet, there
        are also people practicing these in light, i do
        sense.




        There is a certain cultural (sometimes it shows up
        as 'racial') bias in what *appears* of Steiner's
        teaching. We here in the Anthroposophic Society
        in America (U.S.) have been really struggling
        with this problem (and so, i gather, have
        people in The Netherlands, and so have some
        of my anthropop friends in *some areas* of
        South Africa). I don't find it healthy to
        just go around discounting the non-European/scientific ways of knowing.
        That does smack of 'racism' ,or cultural
        elitism.




        Besides, having lived in Africa, having grown
        up among African-Americans, having experienced
        the power of native american medicine (even this past weekend, in its
        more outward form), I am
        not willing to limit myself, my healing practice,
        to what some interpret as Steiner's call for
        a 'thinking' approach, and a top-down approach only to the chakras. The
        top-down approach has value, no
        doubt, but i do doubt that it is the only way.




        It seems to me that balance is called for--a balance of
        'east'(breath/Air) and 'west'(dream/Water)--note, 'west' here
        is not Europe, but more likely 'Africa', or
        a certain state of being-- of 'north'
        (intellect/Fire) and 'south'(heart/Earth).


        --((And,
        of course, there are still other understandings
        the Elements--four or five, and of the Medicine
        Wheel; so what i mention here is one of several
        systems, and perhaps all have value.))--
        All
        make the Circle, or as the natives here say,
        make the Medicine Wheel complete.




        >
        >The crucial point is whether consciousness is controlled by bodily
        >forces or whether the body is controlled by the spirit-consciousness
        >of
        >the individual Ego.



        Granted, the physical body is limited, always
        in the process of decay, and, thus, it is not to be
        the Master/Mistress.--Yet, we are on Earth, in the
        Flesh, for a reason. This body is an instrument
        of soul and Spirit, is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.--That, it seems to
        me, is the guiding
        perspective, so that i would not ignore or discount
        the body, and neither would i treat it as the
        ultimate source.--Again, balance is called for,
        or a tuning of the instrument.



        >"Eurythmy" and "Speech-Formation" are later
        >artistic
        >applications of the initiation-knowledge gained by Steiner, as ways of
        >bringing the spirit into the physical, not the physical into the
        >spiritual.




        Eurythmy and 'speech training' are good, as
        far as i can tell (i've done some eurythmy, and
        don't claim to be an expert, or course--smile--
        yet i feel the good of the practice). Yet, these,
        i say again, are not --for me and not for millions
        round the world in other cultures-- not the
        only approaches.--Actually, the whole idea of
        'speech training' from Steiner and Frau Steiner
        strikes me as highly Eurocentric (valuable, even
        lofty; yet limited, as is other speech practice).




        The whole claim of universalism in anthroposophy is
        based on some admirable ideal, yet is often
        distorted to a form of arrogance. The area
        of speech training is one of those arenas of
        perhaps well meant, but limited practice (leaving
        out all the great beauties of, for example,
        African ways of speech, or native american ways
        of speech; --i know less of the many Asian
        ways, and so am not commenting on these, but
        surely they, too, are important).





        >Steiner considers the Misraim rituals building the bridge between the
        >Invisible and the Visible: "downwards" and not "upwards" as with the
        >libertine gnostics.




        Libertine?



        >
        >
        >>sexual energy to attain spiritual progress somewhat like the
        >left-handed
        >>tantrics).



        I am not commenting directly on tantrism, as i know
        next to nothing about it, really. My post is simply
        (or not so simply?--smile) pointing to
        my concern with an anti-body bias. Somewhere here
        are these typical modern Eurocentric/scientific/
        intellectual dualisms, or binary oppositions, as
        they are called: Heaven over Earth;Spirit over Flesh; Intellect
        over body; Male over Female; Europe over Africa
        and the rest of the world, and so on. Pretty
        culturally biased (in terms of gender culture,
        racial culture, national and geographically
        based culture, etc.)....




        On the various forms of Gnosticism, you write:

        >There are forms of Gnosticism that RS defines as
        >Luciferic.
        >These depise the world - "rotten place" - just as Lucifer was not
        >keen
        >on Creation in the first place.



        Anthroposophists (i, sometimes included) perhaps
        like to delude ourselves that we are standing
        against the Luciferic forces (that might exist in some forms of
        gnosticism, tantrism??, shamanism, reading spit balls, or whatever).--But
        the 'thinking' or intellectual way is not the only way to Create,
        to be Present, Here, with/in Heaven and Earth
        (for Earth is also of Heaven...). By being
        rational,scientific, etc. we think we overcome
        Luciferic forces. Well, this is all rather a
        more complex issue. What is Luciferic? What is
        it's relationship to Earth life? These are big
        questions, subject for another post.


        I simply for now would say that many so-called
        Luciferic practices may be escapist, as you
        imply, and yet, that is not the end of the story.
        There is a 'Luciferic' enthusiasm that can
        lead to a kind of groundedness, but, as i said,
        that's a long story.


        (Smile)---



        Well, i love talking/sharing with you guys here.
        Guys? Besides 'moi', are there any women here, ones who can also be
        called
        'guys'? (Smile)


        Love (Is that un-anthroposophically Luciferic?),
        (smile, please),
        elaine
        .....................

        ___________________________________________________________________
        Get the Internet just the way you want it.
        Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
        Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
      • elaine121@xxxx.xxx
        Hello anthroposophy list, and thank you, precious woodsong/carol! Your message, carol, arrived at the anthroposophy list and i am sending this copy to you!--
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 1999
          Hello anthroposophy list, and
          thank you, precious woodsong/carol!


          Your message, carol, arrived at the anthroposophy list and i am sending
          this copy to you!--


          And, If there are any replies from any of you gentlemen on the
          anthroposophy list (or any lurking ladies or women),
          i hope you don't mind if i forward these on to carol.


          Carol-ing, Aho, Amin, Blessed Be to what you say and share.
          Thank you for listening and be/ing, for your
          heart here.

          So, Bruce, how about it on that heart chakra?
          What more has Steiner to say on this.


          And darling carol, it's good to see another female singer here
          --even if briefly (although, you men, not to worry:
          i love you, too).


          In search of (w)holism,
          elaine
          ................



          On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:22:17 -0400 carol woodsong <woodsong@...>
          writes:
          >
          >Heya, elaine and all!
          >
          >I'm not sure this will 'fly' (i'm not subscribed to the anthropop
          >list) -- but thought i'd give it a try-- ((whenever elaine is talking
          >about sex, i want in on it! ;)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >first--- just to clarify- i'm not an anthroposophist-- not much of
          >anything really. :) although i do like to think of myself as a
          >lover--- lover of God, All My Relations-- where God IS love, lover,
          >and beloved-- we are One....
          >
          >
          >anyway :) -- on to the discussion. (hey elaine, does Joel know of this
          >list? might help him overcome his aversion to computers.... ((grin,
          >duck)) :)
          >
          >
          >
          >> >In ancient times the link between sex and
          >>>religion was par for the course, but there came a time when it's use
          >in this
          >>>way
          >>>could only lead to error and illness -mental and bodily.
          >
          >
          >i'd also like some clarification here--- define, if you will :)
          >your terms---
          >the sex part i get --- :) but what do you mean by 'religion' and
          >'link'?
          >
          >
          >As we all seem to agree--- sex is sacred--
          >isn't /that/, in and of itself--- 'the link'?
          >How can you 'separate' one thing (anything,really?) from another?
          >Everything, all of it, is relational--- most particularly, i would
          >think--- sex.
          >
          >
          >read something recently that said God is relationship--- i find more
          >and more that truth showing itself!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>>the snake by the head rather than the tail and leads to a free
          >>>development. It is not asceticism however, it is just that one
          >>doesn't
          >>>access the spiritual by the use of bodily forces such as sex,
          >>>breathing
          >>>and narcotics.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >hmmm--
          >okay. But,still--- in all these things (ways) there IS connection---
          >they ARE spiritual in Nature--
          >
          >
          >
          >i guess what you're saying is that RS taught that to focus on these
          >things is perhaps counter to spiritual development?
          >
          >
          >
          >>>It is true that in the early days RS did recommend
          >>>breathing exercises to some of his pupils, but he prefered that
          >>>breathing altered itself naturally.
          >
          >
          >
          >hmm--
          >interesting! :)
          >'my' way tends to insist on that too. :)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>What is 'purely physical'? Isn't the physical
          >>always a manifestation, a revelation, of
          >>the soul, and the health or ill of the soul,
          >>the connection to or separateness from Spirit?
          >
          >
          >yup.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>Even sex is not 'purely physical' (thus,
          >>i agree with you that it is sacred).
          >
          >
          >right.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>Actually, isn't there a teaching somewhere
          >>(of Steiner) that every time we touch we call
          >>up one or more planets?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >dunno. But i like the idea!! :)
          >touch is very "spiritual" to me.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>-- Touch
          >>is prayer, not only in healing massage, but
          >>also in sex between lovers (those who love),
          >>between friends, between parent and child
          >>(thus, the kind
          >>of touch is so important, and care must be
          >>taken that the touch is not invasive, or
          >>depleting of the energies of freedom).
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >yes. :)
          >gee, elaine, we tend to agree alot! ! :)
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>All
          >>make the Circle, or as the natives here say,
          >>make the Medicine Wheel complete.
          >
          >
          >
          >a ho!!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>>The crucial point is whether consciousness is controlled by bodily
          >>>forces or whether the body is controlled by the spirit-consciousness
          >
          >>>of
          >>>the individual Ego.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >aahhhhhhh!
          >triune self talk!!
          >perhaps--- it is thus: :)
          >
          >consciousness, the 'middle self' is the mediator/ self/// me, the one
          >who chooses.
          >
          >
          >the 'body'/emotional/ programmed 'false ego', little self', ku -- can
          >be (and indeed will be, in the Natural hierarchy) 'controlled' by the
          >conscious SELF.
          >
          >
          >
          >Spirit /High Self/ the Lght within, is AVAILABLE (the still, small
          >voice)-- but must be asked for and listened for closely (beyond all
          >the noise of ku/worldly concerns)
          >High Self will not 'choose' --- that is the domain of "middle self"
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >>ultimate source.--Again, balance is called for,
          >>or a tuning of the instrument.
          >
          >
          >
          >yes.
          >
          >
          >
          >love, mitaquye oyasin (All My Relations-)
          >woodsong
          >
          >
          >___________________________________________________________________
          >Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail,
          >and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web:
          >http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

          ___________________________________________________________________
          Get the Internet just the way you want it.
          Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
          Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
        • 888
          Dear Elaine, ... this ... http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm this page gives details, look under spermognostics there. ... In ancient times phallicism
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 6, 1999
            Dear Elaine,
            >Thanks for the discussion of 'sex magic' (though i am not sure what
            this
            >is, but assume it is similar
            >to eastern tantrism, as mentioned).
            http://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
            this page gives details, look under spermognostics there.

            >"The link between sex and religion"? Perhaps you
            >might say more about exactly what *link* you refer to, Bruce.

            In ancient times phallicism (also temple prostitution) was pretty much a
            universal religion- there are many examples which could be made. This
            was not just symbolic, as modern people think, but a direct connection
            to God was found through sex. Solovyiev says that when animals copulate
            they become one with their group spirit. With humans this experience was
            of Father God, and according to Barfield this is why we call it the
            "Father". (Some hints in what I posted about Leadbeater- symbol of the
            Father being a circle with a dot in the middle.)
            This is also connected with the Kundalini (interesting that Kundalini
            Masters -such as the late Muktananda - in India are celibate.) The
            Medusa is a symbol of the Kundalini entering the cranium and then
            appearing as snakes, also that this was becoming an unhealthy process-
            turning us to stone.
            Anyway, read in Bock how the initiate Moses had to (for the future of
            the human race)overcome all this. It was not easy, there was lots of
            backsliding as the OT recounts.
            >Later in
            >your post you say (and i agree)
            >that sex is sacred.
            RS explains that our generative organs were destined to be our highest.
            It is a microcosmic/macrocosmic thing. He bewailed the fact that folk
            were too facetious to talk about these things. Another reason is that
            they are too easily inflamed when discussing this topic.
            Yet, if i understand you correctly, you are saying that Steiner has
            taught
            >that use of the 'lower' bodily functions, and letting the 'lower'
            chakras direct our spiritual
            >work is a decadent and even dangerous practice.
            He does discuss a little about the 10 petalled chakra in KotHW. But most
            of us are kept pretty busy with the others.
            It is not so much a question of "'lower' chakras direct our spiritual
            work" but that "bodily forces" should not be used- all these work
            through the feet: our earth pole.
            Black Magicians, however always have to use the physical, even to the
            point of sacrifice of creatures and using their organs.
            We didn't mention eating- there are those too, who believe you can "eat
            your way to heaven."

            >How so exactly?--
            By working with the upper chakras we retain our freedom in waking day
            consciousness. The forces of the lower chakras work in the subconscious,
            by emphasising these before we have mastered the upper three, we become
            a slave to all sorts of lower impulses.

            >I have this question especially about breathing practice and that
            chakra. (It becomes >even more unclear to me when you speak and separate
            heart and lung; some systems see these as part of one chakra, thus how
            can one elevate the heart
            and not include the lung in the process?
            Firstly the "heart" and the "heart chakra" are two different things.
            This chakra is in the region of the heart, which according to RS is
            destined to be our highest organ.
            The lung as I understand it, is an organ of the ego.
            Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
            breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
            soul.
            From what
            >*little* i know, it seems that breathing and heart functions are pretty
            closely related.)
            There is a related rhythm.
            >Again, i do not understand this separation of heart and breathing
            functions.
            In some ways they are connected, in others not. You could consider them
            together as a "chest centre."

            >More, on the practical side of things: wouldn't
            >it be difficult for most people to focus on
            >heart chakra without going through the attention
            >to breathing.
            I was referring to the sixfold path which i know, you are well aware of.
            As I posted to Art, the breathing will take care of itself. Even if you
            live in the rhythms of nature your breathing will alter.
            >Most people, it seems to me (and i include myself) would not
            >ordinarily find control of heartbeat a readily
            >available practice. What is your understanding
            >here?--
            The Eastern adepts can control their heartbeat, but no, there is no
            reason why you would need to do it.
            >Perhaps i am lost or lingering in darkness
            >when i attend to my breathing.
            I have a lot of material on breathing because some friends have been
            doing the Buteyko course. Now and again I post it on spiritualscience.
            I can only post what RS has said. There must be a place for breathing
            exercises for health purposes but as with Buteyko, it is not a lasting
            cure.
            And as I said before, RS in the early days, gave out lots of breathing
            exercises, however these were given with strict provisos - those pledges
            of the ES for one.
            >I actually do follow a breathing practice that
            >Steiner gave. Is this one that he gave , as you
            >say below, initially to certain pupils, and then
            >abandoned?
            What he gave out privately later, probably still remains private. You
            can judge for yourself how you're going. Remember Steiner says
            "ideally".

            >((What i refer to is a breathing practice one can read of in, for
            example,
            >_Guidance in Esoteric Training_, with references to yogic practice, and
            >many other exercises, including the morning waking exercises.--The
            practice is to breathe, as a morning exercise, to breathe in to a
            certain count, breathe out twice as long, hold the breath three times as
            long....etc.
            >Are you saying that Steiner later abandoned this
            >teaching?))
            See quote to Art. Yes, he later had concerns, but remember these were ES
            members who were given the exercises.

            >What does 'natural' mean in this day and age,
            >with all the stresses, chaos or schedules, eating,
            >etc.? Would natural breathing result, then, from
            >a more rhythmic life? Is that the idea?
            Through meditation, and yes other daily habits. Event the clothes you
            wear.
            >And how does one attend the heart chakra?
            Sixfold path.

            >What is 'purely physical'?
            As opposed to the spiritual verities such as the virtues. RS's oft
            quoted "for every one step spiritually you must take three morally."
            >Isn't the physical always a manifestation, a revelation, of the >soul,
            and the health or ill >of the soul, the connection to or separateness
            from Spirit?
            Well you can "lift the lid" to spiritual experience via the bodily
            forces, it's just that this is an upside down approach in modern
            spiritual practice.
            To lift ourselves into the spiritual we cannot rely solely on the
            "earth" element because for one thing it is not lasting ie you don't
            take the spiritual achievement with you after death.

            >Ie., yellowish irises, skin indicate perhaps a liver ailment, and the
            >liver's imbalance signals an
            >imbalance of the soul, in it's effort to realize
            >Spirit/Self.
            In the same way, you could mock up an orange and feed yourself with it,
            and this might well work temporarily, but after a while your body would
            suffer.

            >This is not 'purely physical', and surely
            >neither is *breathing*.
            Of course, but the forcing of the physical lungs is a manipulation of
            the physical to attain spiritual results- Pranayama.
            >Actually, isn't there a teaching somewhere
            >(of Steiner) that every time we touch we call
            >up one or more planets? An anthroposophic
            You could argue that eurthmy is a case of the subject at hand.
            >- Touch
            >is prayer, not only in healing massage, but
            >also in sex between lovers (those who love),
            >between friends, between parent and child
            >(thus, the kind
            I might argue with you about touch. I would say that the touch between
            those who love each other and those who don't is different. The
            fingertips impart much.

            >In these regards, i doubt that i can truly call
            >myself anthroposophist (though i am a member of
            >the Society). I don't know whether Steiner taught
            >as Peter Koenig indicates (and i don't have web
            >access at the moment). But I am *not* ready to
            >say that 'thinking' is the only way.
            It is interesting that Blavatsky taught a similar line. No thinking is
            only part of it. I'll try and find a quote.
            >Now, some anthroposophists give lip
            >service to a holistic approach (of which
            >intellect is only one part), yet the
            >reality (in my experience with anthropops on three different
            continents)
            >is that there seems to be a mistrust of
            There is a problem, and it is to be solved by embracing the truly human.


            >Crystal reading, tarot, palmistry, shamanism --these may
            >exist in decadent forms today, and yet, there
            >are also people practicing these in light, i do
            >sense.
            I would only hope for the very best. Maybe some have not been altogether
            satisfied with what Dr. Steiner has given. New problems, new conditions
            are always arising, hopefully we can meet these needs in the healthiest
            way.
            I am not an apologist for Anthroposophy- there are a few around who have
            that job.
            >Besides, having lived in Africa, having grown
            >up among African-Americans, having experienced
            >the power of native american medicine (even this past weekend, in its
            >more outward form), I am
            >not willing to limit myself, my healing practice,
            On top of all the myriad of healing modalities, I would suggest that
            true healing is only found through Christ.

            >It seems to me that balance is called for--a balance of
            >'east'(breath/Air) and 'west'(dream/Water)--note, 'west' here
            >is not Europe, but more likely 'Africa', or
            > a certain state of being-- of 'north'
            >(intellect/Fire) and 'south'(heart/Earth).
            Everybody is an individual, with individual needs. Also I think we can
            examine every single practice, native or otherwise and look at its pros
            and cons.
            We have all been here before and it only natural that past inclinations
            will resurface.
            >perspective, so that i would not ignore or discount
            >the body, and neither would i treat it as the
            >ultimate source.--Again, balance is called for,
            >or a tuning of the instrument.
            Ignoring the body and cleaving only to the spirit is asceticism, that is
            not what we are talking about here, though again it was/is a practice
            that worked.

            >The whole claim of universalism in anthroposophy is
            >based on some admirable ideal, yet is often
            >distorted to a form of arrogance.
            See, I don't see anthroposophy as universal. I think only those who are
            prepared for it receive it. For that reason, proselytising is a waste of
            time.

            The area
            >of speech training is one of those arenas of
            >perhaps well meant, but limited practice (leaving
            >out all the great beauties of, for example,
            The daughter movements, though can have wide application.
            >African ways of speech, or native American ways
            >of speech; --i know less of the many Asian
            >ways, and so am not commenting on these, but
            >surely they, too, are important).
            Rudolf Steiner said that it is important that people be able to retain
            their own language. Each age has its dominant cultural language though,
            and at present that is American English.

            >Libertine?
            Those anything goes type people- not acetic!

            >I am not commenting directly on tantrism, as i know
            >next to nothing about it, really. My post is simply
            >(or not so simply?--smile) pointing to
            >my concern with an anti-body bias.
            It is not an anti body bias. We could equally say there is an anti
            spirit bias. It's just that there is a place for everything and
            everything in its place- Balance.

            >Spirit over Flesh;
            This is not the case, a balance is called for.

            >Pretty
            >culturally biased (in terms of gender culture,
            >racial culture, national and geographically
            >based culture, etc.)....
            You can view it as biases, and that they may be, but they could be just
            the way things are. In order to source the truth we must also see
            through our own biases.
            eg. in seeing Christianity as superior to other religions RS said it was
            no more biased than viewing the Sun in relation to the other planets.
            There can sometimes be a misguided sense of fairness and equality where
            indeed equality doesn't exist or apply.

            >Anthroposophists (i, sometimes included) perhaps
            >like to delude ourselves that we are standing
            >against the Luciferic forces (that might exist in some forms of
            >gnosticism, tantrism??, shamanism, reading spit balls, or whatever).
            I believe there is way too much talk of Lucifer and Ahriman in
            Anthroposophical circles. For one thing, when you pronounce the name or
            give attention to a god you invite him in, and his presence doesn't take
            long to show itself. For another, we are instructed to concentrate on
            the good in the world, and this is healthy and gives us life.

            >What is Luciferic? What is
            >it's relationship to Earth life? These are big
            >questions, subject for another post.
            Good question, I'll leave you to it.
            >Besides 'moi', are there any women here, ones who can also be
            >called
            >'guys'? (Smile)
            I waiting for them to appear. There are about 47 on this list now.

            >Love (Is that un-anthroposophically Luciferic?),
            It depends - does it imply bodily forces?

            Affectionately,
            Bruce
          • 888
            Hi Elaine, ... These could be viewed as the different tacks of East and West. When yoga exercises first appeared in America, their use was soon picked up by
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 11, 1999
              Hi Elaine,

              >When i suggest that
              >some approaches (anthroposophic, in this case) might show an 'anti-body
              >bias' or a racial/cultural/gender bias, you suggest that perhaps the
              >opposite is also
              >true in the practices of some others --ie., an anti-spirit bias.

              These could be viewed as the different tacks of East and West. When yoga
              exercises first appeared in America, their use was soon picked up by
              those who wanted to use them in business- you know, to develop increased
              powers of will and what-not. In India there was the pure ascetic motive
              of embracing the spirit, but in the West we have tended to give our
              attention to the worldly, some using occult exercises to their advantage
              in this way.

              Now as far as the perceived racial/cultural bias in Waldorf ed (which I
              don't view as anthroposophy), firstly the curriculum alone is not
              Waldorf ed. The most important cornerstone is that warm, loving teacher
              which RS says we must go out and look for. I personally don't see
              anything wrong with teaching an African language or African stories.
              Each language has its special character and I'm sure there would be a
              place for the stories in the developmental timeline.
              The problem is finding enough enrolments of those who want this
              particular curriculum.

              There is no doubt that Dr.Steiner delineates differences between men and
              women, their past and their future. Now if there are differences there,
              and in the cultures and races, should we be able to hear about them?
              Should we shoot the messenger? These days it is all too quickly assumed
              that the speaker has a hidden agenda, if differences of race/gender are
              voiced.

              From the beginning -in PoSA - Dr.Steiner made it clear that above all,
              the individual was important beyond their race or sex. But there is a
              war going on between the race identities, between the sexes, apart from
              human beings. This is why we must strive to become conscious more and
              more, of what drives and influences us.

              Fond Regards,
              Bruce
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.