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

Re: sexual magic and gnosis

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.