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

Re: sexual magic and gnosis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Jul 4, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 5 , Jul 5, 1999
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 5 , Jul 6, 1999
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 5 , Jul 11, 1999
          • 0 Attachment
            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.