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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Jul 15 7:39 AM
    • 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 2 of 8 , Jul 15 5:16 PM
      • 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 3 of 8 , Jul 16 6:33 PM
        • 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 4 of 8 , Jul 17 7:49 AM
          • 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.