Re: [anthroposophy] sexual magic and gnosis
- 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.