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

Father?-Re: [anthroposophy] THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

Expand Messages
  • elaine upton
    Hello all, And thanks, Bruce, for these words from Owen Barfield, and Steiner within these, on the Father (as related to the Light). The Father and death, huh?
    Message 1 of 8 , Jul 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,

      And thanks, Bruce, for these words from Owen Barfield, and Steiner within
      these, on the Father (as related to the Light). The Father and death, huh?
      Well, that is, indeed, as Barfield says, something to live into, something
      to walk with.

      Interesting how this goes against my own habitual understanding of the
      Mother = womb/darkness/birth/death in the feminine circle here. I wonder how
      this whole matter of the Father is different than the above equation or
      relationships. Maybe there's something here about form and formlessness,
      closedness (form/masculine/Father=death) and
      openness(womb/feminine/Mother=birth). Perhaps. Any ideas on this?

      How do we read the Holy Spirit, Divine Mother, Sophia, as relates to Christ?
      And why a son (not a daughter) in this whole great dramatic story? One could
      say, or might say, that i am being picky here, getting unduly caught up in
      worldly matters of gender. But, I trust that is not the case, for words do
      have significance. If the word "Father", as used many times in the Gospels,
      carries significance (and with Barfield and Steiner it does), then so does
      the absence of "Mother"--and of Daughter (we have Father-Son instead, as in
      Shakespeare's comedies--smile).

      Barfield, the student of words (a la POETIC DICTION, history of word
      studies, Coleridge studies, etc.) would surely know the significance of
      words, i would think. So, does he address this matter of why Son and not
      Daughter, why Father and not Mother? Why not both? Nowhere that i know of
      does he address this, but maybe i missed something. --Does Steiner address
      any of this?

      The Dark Feminine archetype exist in the Black Madonna and the like, and in
      the associations with Mary Magdalene. So, is that a counterpart to the
      Father-Son and the Light? But why does the conventional Bible
      (Gospels...)and even most of anthroposophic teachings (except in the
      relatively recent Sophianic movement) glance over this Divine Feminine
      Aspect? Or is it that we are still waiting for the descent of the Holy
      Spirit and the flames of Pentecost to burn us up (smile)?

      Pace e Bene,
      elaine


      ________________________________________________________________________
      Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
    • 888
      Hi Elaine and all, For those who don t know, Owen was a member of a group of writers termed the Inklings. I have been reading about another interesting British
      Message 2 of 8 , Jul 5, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Elaine and all,

        For those who don't know, Owen was a
        member of a group of writers termed the Inklings.
        I have been reading about another interesting British writer lately-
        Charles Williams:
        http://www.multimaxx.com/chesterton/bios/cwbio.html

        CW along with Evelyn Underhill were members of A.E. Waite's breakaway
        from the "Golden Dawn", "The Fellowship of the Rosy Cross."

        >The Father and death, huh?

        Startling? I choked on it. :0)
        Notice he says:
        "I came forth from death, that is from death in its TRUE FORM, from the
        Life-Father"

        This is referring to our after death state. Being at one with the Father
        could be described as death, death to self - Nirvana.

        I think we need more words to describe this. We only confuse it with
        "anti life" otherwise.


        >Interesting how this goes against my own habitual understanding of the
        >Mother = womb/darkness/birth/death

        Creation itself is feminine, as in Mother Earth. This is how I see it.



        >And why a son (not a daughter) in this whole great dramatic story?

        I see Christ as containing both the feminine and masculine.


        >If the word "Father", as used many times in the Gospels,
        >carries significance (and with Barfield and Steiner it does), then so
        does
        >the absence of "Mother"--and of Daughter (we have Father-Son instead,
        as in
        >Shakespeare's comedies--smile).

        Alice posted this a while back on spiritualscience:
        Tomberg presents an interesting idea which overlays two Trinities in the
        interlocking triangles of Solomon's Seal:

        Father/Son/Holy Spirit (upward triangle)

        Mother/Daughter/Holy Soul (downward triangle)


        >(Gospels...)and even most of anthroposophic teachings (except in the
        >relatively recent Sophianic movement) glance over this Divine Feminine
        >Aspect?


        Steiner says that there is something of a battle between the masculine
        and feminine- see Temple Legend.

        The male line will recover the Lost Word which is the kriyashakti or
        power of regeneration which was lost at the time of the separation of
        the sexes. This was a secret of Freemasonry and had to be kept from
        women ( so I can't tell you any more cos you play for the other team.)

        This quote from Paul BTW
        "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted
        unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also
        saith the law.
        And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
        for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

        1 Corinthians 14:34-35

        is thought to be evidence that he was prejudiced against women. I think
        it's Bock who explains it refers to the Sibylline gift that some women
        retained, which led them to give "talk in tongues type" demonstrations
        in Church.

        In Christ,
        Bruce
        On a different note-
        Terry's article on the 4 archangels and their Japanese equivalents is
        worth a look:
        http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/terry.boardman/EW8.htm
      • elaine upton
        Hello all, and thanks Bruce for your reply and attention to my questions on Father-son, Mother-daughter, masculine-feminine. What is said by one (Bock?) on
        Message 3 of 8 , Jul 9, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello all, and thanks Bruce for your reply and attention to my questions on
          Father-son, Mother-daughter, masculine-feminine.

          What is said by one (Bock?) on Paul's words about women keeping silent is
          very helpful...Sybilline, huh? I'll stay open to that idea.

          You mention Freemasonry holding the secrets of the lost connection of
          masculine and feminine, but say you can't say more because i "play for the
          other side". --Smile--Well, i hope i am learning to play for both sides.
          --smile again...and right now am playing, i trust, for the lost or
          marginalized feminine (dare i say?).

          Edouard Schure, if i remember, says something related--something abotu
          Moses's initiation being one where he was to lead the Israelites in a more
          masculine direction, otherwise the feminine (Eve) impulses would
          overpower.-In a general way, this makes sense, and yet the balance seems to
          have been terribly disturbed, at least when i look, but then i admit to a
          limited seeing. Even so, i seek to follow a "heart thinking" which tells me
          that it is time to re-dress the balance.

          I will go to the websites you offer. Thanks.
          And thanks for the Masonic/Solomonic double triangle/Trinity.

          Love,
          elaine





          ________________________________________________________________________
          Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
        • 888
          Dear Elaine --Smile--Well, i hope i am learning to play for both sides. ... Yes we do get to swap sides, don t we? Rudolf Steiner says Nowadays, the sole
          Message 4 of 8 , Jul 13, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Elaine
            --Smile--Well, i hope i am learning to play for both sides.
            >--smile again...and right now am playing, i trust, for the lost or
            >marginalized feminine (dare i say?).

            Yes we do get to swap sides, don't we?
            Rudolf Steiner says
            "Nowadays, the sole possibilty between of creating a balance between the
            two sexes exists only in the Theosophical Society."
            Lec. 18 The Temple Legend. (This is where he discusses the occult battle
            of the sexes.)


            >Edouard Schure, if i remember, says something related--something abotu
            >Moses's initiation being one where he was to lead the Israelites in a
            more
            >masculine direction, otherwise the feminine (Eve) impulses would
            >overpower.

            I wonder if this has something to do with the Kundalini power, that
            Moses also had to overcome in that ancient world.
            I've been thinking further about the Father and death because of Joel's
            question about the Swan Initiation.
            I remembered that RS at the end of an instruction on the AUM referred to
            it as a great Swan.
            Could absorption into this AUM be a state of death to worldly things?

            Love ,
            Bruce
          • Danny F.
            ... There s no such a thing as masculine/feminine properly except in the etherico/physical no? I think extending the duality masculine/feminine to the whole
            Message 5 of 8 , Jul 15, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              --- 888 <bhive@...> wrote:

              > Alice posted this a while back on spiritualscience:
              > Tomberg presents an interesting idea which overlays two Trinities in
              > the
              > interlocking triangles of Solomon's Seal:
              >
              > Father/Son/Holy Spirit (upward triangle)
              >
              > Mother/Daughter/Holy Soul (downward triangle)


              There's no such a thing as masculine/feminine properly except in the
              etherico/physical no? I think extending the 'duality'
              masculine/feminine to the whole cosmos is certainly Luciferic,
              in doing so, you get rid of the threefoldness, only seeing the
              cosmos in an ever sensuous sexual kind of thing.

              Regards,
              Danny

              =====
              "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
              It seeks to awaken life."

              --Rudolf Steiner

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere!
              http://mail.yahoo.com/
            • 888
              ... Dear Danny, I wouldn t agree with that. It used to puzzle me why I couldn t find anything in anthroposophy which defined masculine feminine qualities,
              Message 6 of 8 , Jul 15, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                > There's no such a thing as masculine/feminine properly except in the
                > etherico/physical no?

                Dear Danny,
                I wouldn't agree with that. It used to puzzle me why I
                couldn't find anything in anthroposophy which defined masculine feminine
                qualities, like say we find in the Chinese Ying/Yang: light/dark,
                hard/soft etc. These qualities don't just relate to men and women but
                are universal qualities.

                We have spoken on lists about this before and I asked listmembers if
                they could volunteer some qualities but no one replied. I recently found
                some good quotes from ancient Rome which quite clearly show a common
                belief that the element of water was feminine and fire masculine, for
                example. These are universal elements and were used symbolically in the
                Roman wedding ceremony.

                >I think extending the 'duality'
                > masculine/feminine to the whole cosmos is certainly Luciferic,
                > in doing so, you get rid of the threefoldness, only seeing the
                > cosmos in an ever sensuous sexual kind of thing.

                Actually, I find monism to be more indicative of a Luciferic outlook.
                You just have to look around at the New Age movement. There is even a
                non duality site. This is because monism defines a state when we merge
                our ego with Nirvana.

                You can find in the old Rosicrucain diagrams sexual symbols. The fact
                that human beings place sensual ideas on them is a problem with human
                beings, not the truths that they represent.
                In fact you might call it Jehovistic rather than Luciferic; and the word
                "Jehovah" has been defined by Blavatsky as meaning male/female.

                If you have a copy of Steiner's The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness you
                can read more about these sexual symbols and their deeper meaning. I
                think Dr. Steiner had a problem discussing these things because as he
                said folk were too facetious.

                Sexual doesn't have to mean sensual eg. the plant world.

                Warm Regards,
                Bruce
                BTW this is the subject of the thread and Barfield will get to the point
                soon.
              • Danny F.
                ... You re right, for they don t think nor they have an astral body. I was standing from the human psychological and still quite often anthropomorphic kind of
                Message 7 of 8 , Jul 16, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 888 <bhive@...> wrote:
                  > > There's no such a thing as masculine/feminine properly except in
                  > the
                  > > etherico/physical no?
                  >
                  > Dear Danny,
                  > I wouldn't agree with that. It used to puzzle me
                  > why I
                  > couldn't find anything in anthroposophy which defined masculine
                  > feminine
                  > qualities, like say we find in the Chinese Ying/Yang: light/dark,
                  > hard/soft etc. These qualities don't just relate to men and women but
                  > are universal qualities.
                  >
                  > We have spoken on lists about this before and I asked listmembers if
                  > they could volunteer some qualities but no one replied. I recently
                  > found
                  > some good quotes from ancient Rome which quite clearly show a common
                  > belief that the element of water was feminine and fire masculine, for
                  > example. These are universal elements and were used symbolically in
                  > the
                  > Roman wedding ceremony.
                  >
                  > >I think extending the 'duality'
                  > > masculine/feminine to the whole cosmos is certainly Luciferic,
                  > > in doing so, you get rid of the threefoldness, only seeing the
                  > > cosmos in an ever sensuous sexual kind of thing.
                  >
                  > Actually, I find monism to be more indicative of a Luciferic outlook.
                  > You just have to look around at the New Age movement. There is even a
                  > non duality site. This is because monism defines a state when we
                  > merge
                  > our ego with Nirvana.
                  >
                  > You can find in the old Rosicrucain diagrams sexual symbols. The fact
                  > that human beings place sensual ideas on them is a problem with human
                  > beings, not the truths that they represent.
                  > In fact you might call it Jehovistic rather than Luciferic; and the
                  > word
                  > "Jehovah" has been defined by Blavatsky as meaning male/female.
                  >
                  > If you have a copy of Steiner's The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness
                  > you
                  > can read more about these sexual symbols and their deeper meaning. I
                  > think Dr. Steiner had a problem discussing these things because as he
                  > said folk were too facetious.
                  >
                  > Sexual doesn't have to mean sensual eg. the plant world.

                  You're right, for they don't think nor they have an astral body.
                  I was standing from the human psychological and still quite often
                  anthropomorphic kind of thinking that goes on nowadays. That's easy
                  to see where the anthroposophical kind of thinking stand beside the
                  mainstream Luciferical/Ahrimanical one, the heart still bearly think
                  organically yet, that's a "seed" that needs the Sun Spirit warmth in
                  order to real breakthrough, and under the right Light, grow.


                  > Warm Regards,
                  > Bruce
                  > BTW this is the subject of the thread and Barfield will get to the
                  > point
                  > soon.

                  I guess we just have to wait then...

                  Regards,
                  Danny

                  =====
                  "Anthroposophy does not want to impart knowledge.
                  It seeks to awaken life."

                  --Rudolf Steiner

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Get Yahoo! Mail � Free email you can access from anywhere!
                  http://mail.yahoo.com/
                • elaine upton
                  Hello Bruce, On the topic of the Father and death, you refer again to the Swan ... Ah! And AUM! I see the swan reaching (A), then folding its long neck in (the
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jul 17, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Bruce,
                    On the topic of the Father and death, you refer again to the Swan
                    initiation, and that's a beautiful image of AUM and the Swan:


                    >I remember that at the end of an instruction [Steiner's]
                    >on the AUM referred to
                    >it as a great Swan.
                    >Could absorption into this AUM be a state of death to worldly things?

                    Ah! And AUM! I see the swan reaching (A), then folding its long neck in (the
                    downward or, depending on perspective, the upward U of its neck), then going
                    hoMMMe/death-MMM--the perfect eurythmy!

                    Love,
                    elaine

                    ________________________________________________________________________
                    Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.