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

Re: [anthroposophy] sexual magic and gnosis

Expand Messages
  • elaine m upton
    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
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 10, 1999
      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
      > 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
      > --------------------------- 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.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.