Re: [anthroposophy] sexual magic and gnosis
- Dearest Elaine and Carol,
>So, Bruce, how about it on that heart chakra?I can't think of anything more offhand.
>What more has Steiner to say on this.
The consideration of the heart is important for it is our highest organ,
though it has not the time of development that the brain has had. Truly
we are to be pictured as flying hearts, rather than as some picture-
flying brains or phalli.
And we can have a thinking heart.
>>i'd also like some clarification here--- define, if you will :)Hope you get it now, after my little sketches.
>>the sex part i get --- :) but what do you mean by 'religion' and
>>How can you 'separate' one thing (anything,really?) from another?The examination of particulars is part of material science and spiritual
>>Everything, all of it, is relational--- most particularly, i would
>>hmmm--Sure, I wasn't disputing that. In the case of narcotics, we get a dose
>>okay. But,still--- in all these things (ways) there IS connection---
>>they ARE spiritual in Nature--
of death that causes an illusion of more life. Dr. Steiner has given
details on these things.
Put broadly, there are two paths here, one using death forces and the
You will never penetrate the higher mysteries using these "breaking down
the door" techniques.
>i guess what you're saying is that RS taught that to focus on theseCounter to _true_ development- which you can view as a string of
>>things is perhaps counter to spiritual development?
virtues. These are lasting things by which we are altered.
Love to All my rellys,
- Hello Bruce in Oz and all,
Thanks, Bruce, for your care-full reply to my post. --I especially find
helpful your responses to what i say on "biases". 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. Thank
you. I'll live with that!
As for the particular point on breathing (which you've also been
discussing with Art), I am
listening. Still have lots to learn here....
I'll read your post again, and open myself to more learning as i go on
through life here.
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 18:27:24 +1000 "888" <bhive@...> writes:
> From: "888" <bhive@...>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Elaine,
> >Thanks for the discussion of 'sex magic' (though i am not sure what
> >is, but assume it is similar
> >to eastern tantrism, as mentioned).
> 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.
> was not just symbolic, as modern people think, but a direct
> to God was found through sex. Solovyiev says that when animals
> they become one with their group spirit. With humans this experience
> 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
> Father being a circle with a dot in the middle.)
> This is also connected with the Kundalini (interesting that
> 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
> turning us to stone.
> Anyway, read in Bock how the initiate Moses had to (for the future
> 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
> It is a microcosmic/macrocosmic thing. He bewailed the fact that
> were too facetious to talk about these things. Another reason is
> 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
> of us are kept pretty busy with the others.
> It is not so much a question of "'lower' chakras direct our
> 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
> point of sacrifice of creatures and using their organs.
> We didn't mention eating- there are those too, who believe you can
> your way to heaven."
> >How so exactly?--
> By working with the upper chakras we retain our freedom in waking
> consciousness. The forces of the lower chakras work in the
> by emphasising these before we have mastered the upper three, we
> 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
> heart and lung; some systems see these as part of one chakra, thus
> 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,
> breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
> From what
> >*little* i know, it seems that breathing and heart functions are
> closely related.)
> There is a related rhythm.
> >Again, i do not understand this separation of heart and breathing
> In some ways they are connected, in others not. You could consider
> 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
> As I posted to Art, the breathing will take care of itself. Even if
> 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
> 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
> I can only post what RS has said. There must be a place for
> exercises for health purposes but as with Buteyko, it is not a
> And as I said before, RS in the early days, gave out lots of
> exercises, however these were given with strict provisos - those
> 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
> What he gave out privately later, probably still remains private.
> can judge for yourself how you're going. Remember Steiner says
> >((What i refer to is a breathing practice one can read of in, for
> >_Guidance in Esoteric Training_, with references to yogic practice,
> >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
> >Are you saying that Steiner later abandoned this
> 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
> >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
> and the health or ill >of the soul, the connection to or
> 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
> >liver's imbalance signals an
> >imbalance of the soul, in it's effort to realize
> In the same way, you could mock up an orange and feed yourself with
> and this might well work temporarily, but after a while your body
> >This is not 'purely physical', and surely
> >neither is *breathing*.
> Of course, but the forcing of the physical lungs is a manipulation
> 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
> 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
> 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
> >is that there seems to be a mistrust of
> There is a problem, and it is to be solved by embracing the truly
> >Crystal reading, tarot, palmistry, shamanism --these may
> >exist in decadent forms today, and yet, there
> >are also people practicing these in light, i do
> I would only hope for the very best. Maybe some have not been
> satisfied with what Dr. Steiner has given. New problems, new
> are always arising, hopefully we can meet these needs in the
> I am not an apologist for Anthroposophy- there are a few around who
> 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
> >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
> examine every single practice, native or otherwise and look at its
> and cons.
> We have all been here before and it only natural that past
> 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
> 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
> prepared for it receive it. For that reason, proselytising is a
> waste of
> 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
> their own language. Each age has its dominant cultural language
> and at present that is American English.
> 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.
> >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
> 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
> no more biased than viewing the Sun in relation to the other
> There can sometimes be a misguided sense of fairness and equality
> 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
> I believe there is way too much talk of Lucifer and Ahriman in
> Anthroposophical circles. For one thing, when you pronounce the name
> give attention to a god you invite him in, and his presence doesn't
> long to show itself. For another, we are instructed to concentrate
> 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
> >'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?
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
> ONElist: your connection to like-minds and kindred spirits.
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.