Re: sexual magic and gnosis
- 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
here and raise my questions and comments as
i/we read along.
>I've not read Emil Bock for years, and in all
>For information on how and why this is now decadent I always suggest
>"Moses" by Emil Bock.
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"The link between sex and religion"? Perhaps you
>was par for the course, but there came a time when it's use in this
>could only lead to error and illness -mental and bodily.
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-Again, i do not understand this separation of heart
>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,
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
((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
>It is true that in the early days RS did recommendWhat does 'natural' mean in this day and age,
>breathing exercises to some of his pupils, but he prefered that
>breathing altered itself naturally.
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
>As I posted on my spiritualscience list:What is 'purely physical'? Isn't the physical
>"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."
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
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.--
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:
>Yes, we agree.
>All of the above however, does not discount the sacredness of sex.
>In these regards, i doubt that i can truly call
>Here Peter Koenig's explanation from his site:
>"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
>most obviously referring to hypnotism, mediumship, and Yogic
>but also, presumably, to sexual energies.
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.
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
--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
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
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).
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.))--
make the Circle, or as the natives here say,
make the Medicine Wheel complete.
>Granted, the physical body is limited, always
>The crucial point is whether consciousness is controlled by bodily
>forces or whether the body is controlled by the spirit-consciousness
>the individual Ego.
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 laterEurythmy and 'speech training' are good, as
>applications of the initiation-knowledge gained by Steiner, as ways of
>bringing the spirit into the physical, not the physical into the
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 theLibertine?
>Invisible and the Visible: "downwards" and not "upwards" as with the
>I am not commenting directly on tantrism, as i know
>>sexual energy to attain spiritual progress somewhat like the
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 asAnthroposophists (i, sometimes included) perhaps
>These depise the world - "rotten place" - just as Lucifer was not
>on Creation in the first place.
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.
Well, i love talking/sharing with you guys here.
Guys? Besides 'moi', are there any women here, ones who can also be
Love (Is that un-anthroposophically Luciferic?),
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.
- 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
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,
On Sun, 4 Jul 1999 23:22:17 -0400 carol woodsong <woodsong@...>
>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,
>> >In ancient times the link between sex and
>>>religion was par for the course, but there came a time when it's use
>>>could only lead to error and illness -mental and bodily.
>i'd also like some clarification here--- define, if you will :)
>the sex part i get --- :) but what do you mean by 'religion' and
>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
>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
>>>access the spiritual by the use of bodily forces such as sex,
>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.
>'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?
>>Even sex is not 'purely physical' (thus,
>>i agree with you that it is sacred).
>>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.
>>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).
>gee, elaine, we tend to agree alot! ! :)
>>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
>>>the individual Ego.
>triune self talk!!
>perhaps--- it is thus: :)
>consciousness, the 'middle self' is the mediator/ self/// me, the one
>the 'body'/emotional/ programmed 'false ego', little self', ku -- can
>be (and indeed will be, in the Natural hierarchy) 'controlled' by the
>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.
>love, mitaquye oyasin (All My Relations-)
>Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail,
>and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web:
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.
- Dear Elaine,
>Thanks for the discussion of 'sex magic' (though i am not sure whatthis
>is, but assume it is similarhttp://www.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/steiner.htm
>to eastern tantrism, as mentioned).
this page gives details, look under spermognostics there.
>"The link between sex and religion"? Perhaps youIn ancient times phallicism (also temple prostitution) was pretty much a
>might say more about exactly what *link* you refer to, Bruce.
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 inRS explains that our generative organs were destined to be our highest.
>your post you say (and i agree)
>that sex is sacred.
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
>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 thatchakra. (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
>*little* i know, it seems that breathing and heart functions are prettyclosely related.)
There is a related rhythm.
>Again, i do not understand this separation of heart and breathingfunctions.
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'tI was referring to the sixfold path which i know, you are well aware of.
>it be difficult for most people to focus on
>heart chakra without going through the attention
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 notThe Eastern adepts can control their heartbeat, but no, there is no
>ordinarily find control of heartbeat a readily
>available practice. What is your understanding
reason why you would need to do it.
>Perhaps i am lost or lingering in darknessI have a lot of material on breathing because some friends have been
>when i attend to my breathing.
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
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 thatWhat he gave out privately later, probably still remains private. You
>Steiner gave. Is this one that he gave , as you
>say below, initially to certain pupils, and then
can judge for yourself how you're going. Remember Steiner says
>((What i refer to is a breathing practice one can read of in, forexample,
>_Guidance in Esoteric Training_, with references to yogic practice, andpractice is to breathe, as a morning exercise, to breathe in to a
>many other exercises, including the morning waking exercises.--The
certain count, breathe out twice as long, hold the breath three times as
>Are you saying that Steiner later abandoned thisSee 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,Through meditation, and yes other daily habits. Event the clothes you
>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?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
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
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 theIn the same way, you could mock up an orange and feed yourself with it,
>liver's imbalance signals an
>imbalance of the soul, in it's effort to realize
and this might well work temporarily, but after a while your body would
>This is not 'purely physical', and surelyOf course, but the forcing of the physical lungs is a manipulation of
>neither is *breathing*.
the physical to attain spiritual results- Pranayama.
>Actually, isn't there a teaching somewhereYou could argue that eurthmy is a case of the subject at hand.
>(of Steiner) that every time we touch we call
>up one or more planets? An anthroposophic
>- TouchI might argue with you about touch. I would say that the touch between
>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
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 callIt is interesting that Blavatsky taught a similar line. No thinking is
>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.
only part of it. I'll try and find a quote.
>Now, some anthroposophists give lipcontinents)
>service to a holistic approach (of which
>intellect is only one part), yet the
>reality (in my experience with anthropops on three different
>is that there seems to be a mistrust ofThere is a problem, and it is to be solved by embracing the truly human.
>Crystal reading, tarot, palmistry, shamanism --these mayI would only hope for the very best. Maybe some have not been altogether
>exist in decadent forms today, and yet, there
>are also people practicing these in light, i do
satisfied with what Dr. Steiner has given. New problems, new conditions
are always arising, hopefully we can meet these needs in the healthiest
I am not an apologist for Anthroposophy- there are a few around who have
>Besides, having lived in Africa, having grownOn top of all the myriad of healing modalities, I would suggest that
>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,
true healing is only found through Christ.
>It seems to me that balance is called for--a balance ofEverybody is an individual, with individual needs. Also I think we can
>'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).
examine every single practice, native or otherwise and look at its pros
We have all been here before and it only natural that past inclinations
>perspective, so that i would not ignore or discountIgnoring the body and cleaving only to the spirit is asceticism, that is
>the body, and neither would i treat it as the
>ultimate source.--Again, balance is called for,
>or a tuning of the instrument.
not what we are talking about here, though again it was/is a practice
>The whole claim of universalism in anthroposophy isSee, I don't see anthroposophy as universal. I think only those who are
>based on some admirable ideal, yet is often
>distorted to a form of arrogance.
prepared for it receive it. For that reason, proselytising is a waste of
>of speech training is one of those arenas ofThe daughter movements, though can have wide application.
>perhaps well meant, but limited practice (leaving
>out all the great beauties of, for example,
>African ways of speech, or native American waysRudolf Steiner said that it is important that people be able to retain
>of speech; --i know less of the many Asian
>ways, and so am not commenting on these, but
>surely they, too, are important).
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 knowIt is not an anti body bias. We could equally say there is an anti
>next to nothing about it, really. My post is simply
>(or not so simply?--smile) pointing to
>my concern with an anti-body bias.
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.
>PrettyYou can view it as biases, and that they may be, but they could be just
>culturally biased (in terms of gender culture,
>racial culture, national and geographically
>based culture, etc.)....
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) perhapsI believe there is way too much talk of Lucifer and Ahriman in
>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).
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 isGood question, I'll leave you to it.
>it's relationship to Earth life? These are big
>questions, subject for another post.
>Besides 'moi', are there any women here, ones who can also beI 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?
- Hi Elaine,
>When i suggest thatThese could be viewed as the different tacks of East and West. When yoga
>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.
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
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
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.