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

Re: A Moral Reckoning

Expand Messages
  • carol
    In some way, Jean-Marc, I understand your frustration. But my answer to this is please keep yourself open to the possibility that Anthroposophical experience,
    Message 1 of 111 , Aug 5, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      In some way, Jean-Marc,  I understand your frustration.

      But my answer to this is please keep yourself open to the possibility that Anthroposophical experience,  thus upreaching consciousness soul experience, may well intrinsically possess unchartered dimensions contained within itself, many 'riddles' to be unravelled, all of which are not necessarily accessible to all Anthros,  at all times.

      Just the surface realities consisting of the fact that we study spiritual science for years on end,  that we incarnate to better our souls, in themselves point to the possibility that the  qualities of spiritual understanding,  order and vision must essentially differ, in some 'fashion' ,  from one individual to the next. 

      May I point to the following lecture to indicate where  differentiation may originate.

      RS: "....If we cast an understanding and observant eye over the variety of natural occurrences, we will notice that they seem to fall into two very different and distinct realms: one realm which manifests the greatest kind of regularity and order, and another realm of extensive disorder, irregularity and virtually impenetrable interconnections....

      Even though there is a sharp dividing-line between these two realms, our normal natural sciences do not distinguish clearly between them. On the one hand we have all the things that happen with the regularity with which the sun rises and sets each morning and evening, and with which the stars rise and set, and with which all the other things associated with the rising and setting of the sun occur — such as the plants, which regularly send forth their growing shoots in the spring, develop through the summer, then fade away and disappear in autumn...

      But there is another realm of nature, one which cannot be experienced in the same way. One cannot anticipate storms in the way one can anticipate the sunrise and sunset each morning and evening, for storms do not occur with that kind of regularity...We can say that the sun will occupy a certain position in the heavens at ten o'clock tomorrow morning, but we cannot say that we will see a certain cloud formation in a certain position, let alone say anything about how the clouds will look. Nor can we predict, in the way we can predict the quarters of the moon, that, here in our building in Dornach, we are going to be surprised by a storm or shower at some particular time. It is possible to calculate eclipses of the sun and moon that will happen centuries hence quite accurately, but the occurrence of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted with the same degree of certainty....

      I would like to describe the overall impression that nature makes on us at a given instant as a mixture of the orderly procession of regular events with those other events, the ones that can take us by surprise, even though they come again and again with at least a certain degree of consistency.

      Now, there is a profound truth that we have considered from many points of view in the course of our studies here, the truth that man is a microcosm — that man mirrors the macrocosm and that everything that is to be found at large in the macrocosm can be rediscovered in some form in mankind. So we would expect to find these two spheres of nature expressed in some human form, one which exhibits great order, the other which exhibits a pronounced lack of order. Naturally, in a human life these would be expressed very differently from the way they are expressed out there in nature. Nevertheless, that twofold division of nature into order and irregularity should remind us of something in man....

      ...Everyone dreams and, in the final analysis, dreams are things that bubble up out of the depths of the astral realm. They make their appearance at times when the astral body is being reflected in the etheric body. Every human being possesses a day-to-day awareness that a man like Weininger dismisses as the pedantic consciousness of a philistine, and every human being possess that other consciousness, the one that bubbles up in dreams....

      One should not say, you see, that these dreams and this world of dreams are only present at night when one knows one is dreaming or has been dreaming. For a human being is constantly dreaming. Real dreams, or what one calls real dreams, are only the results of a temporary view of the continuous stream of dreams. Actually, however, one is continuously dreaming. All of you seated here are dreaming. Alongside the thoughts expressed in this lecture which, I trust, are living in you, you are all dreaming. In the depths of your souls you are all dreaming. And the only thing that distinguishes the dreams you have now from the ones you have at night is that at the moment there are other thoughts that are more conscious and stronger, and which I would think outweigh the dreams in most cases. But when waking consciousness has been suppressed and, simultaneously, sleep is interrupted, then what is now being dreamed unconsciously can emerge for a while. That is when a conscious dream appears. The life of dreams, however, proceeds without any interruption..... "

      The Riddle of Humanity LECTURE TWO: Dornach, 30 July 1916

      http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/RiddHuman/19160730p01.html


      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" <jmnguyen@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Carol wrote:
      > "Jean-Marc- you don't TRUST Rudolf Steiner's words? Or is it that you
      > are
      > mistrustful of the one conveying them?"
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
      > ------- Dear Carol, Tomberg insidiously and deliberately misleads
      > his gullible readers into thinking that Rudolf Steiner actually said
      > what the wannabe Bodhisattva says he said... He's careful not to *quote*
      > Rudolf Steiner --- isn't he? As far as I can tell, the "essential
      > deficiency" of Anthroposophy in our world is the sum total of our own
      > individual deficiencies as wannabe anthroposophists... And - according
      > to Steiner! - this [worrying?] state of affairs will *not* prompt the
      > Bodhisattva to be reincarnated --- on the contrary, He will have to wait
      > for "the children" to --- grow up! :-) Jean-Marc
      > =====================================================
      > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Jean-Marc- you don't TRUST Rudolf Steiner's words? Or is it that you
      > are
      > > mistrustful of the one conveying them?
      > >
      > > Luckily for me, I had a minute amount of knowledge of Tomberg, before
      > > being led to ponder, with my soul forces, his situation. Why would you
      > > think that Tomberg considered himself the 'one' to rectify the
      > > situation?
      > >
      > > What if the guy was stuck doing and saying what he felt was 'normal
      > for
      > > himself and that no one could relate? Plain and simple, without
      > > assuming excessive and heightened status, in the spiritual sense.
      > >
      > > And then, as follows, in time:
      > >
      > > Have you considered that it just might be YOUR responsibility, as an
      > > Anthro living in our time, to keep your 'eye' and 'mind' open, in the
      > > event that something of the nature of a 'remedy' towards 'the
      > > deficiency' might NEED catch your attention?
      > >
      > > ps. Thanks for the excerpt and please let yourself know, most
      > thoroughly
      > > that is, that your 'complete' freedom is guaranteed by me, whether we
      > > share differing opionion or not.
      > >
      > > "But unfortunately (for reasons we don't need to go into here), Rudolf
      > > Steiner wanted or had to give his work in the form of a science, the
      > > so-called spiritual science. As a result, the third aspect of the one
      > > and indivisible Trinity Way,Truth and Life - namely Life - got less
      > than
      > > its fair share. For the scientific form in which the logic of the
      > Logos
      > > was forced into and thus restricted, left no room for pure mysticism
      > and
      > > spiritual magic, i.e. 'Life'. Thus the great achievement in thinking
      > and
      > > will in Anthroposophy has no Life [und der insofern das 'Leben' fehlt]
      > > insofar as it is neither mystical nor magical [unmystisch und
      > > unmagisch]. Rudolf Steiner himself was aware of this essential
      > > deficiency. For that reason, he pointed full of hope to theappearance
      > of
      > > a successor (of the Bodhisattva), who would remedy this deficiency and
      > > fully develop the Trinity of Way, Truth and Life."
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" jmnguyen@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Carol wrote:
      > > >
      > > > "(...) that he critisized the fact that a fundamental spirit
      > 'magical
      > > > element' was lacking in the Anthroposophical experience of many he
      > > came
      > > > to know, is also 'something in itself'."
      > > >
      > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
      > \
      > > \
      > > > ----- Again, Carol, I merely mentioned Heindel and Tomberg as
      > > > *examples* --- and it obviously is your subjective Tomberg bias that
      > > > prompted you to question the legitimacy of placing his name next to
      > > > Steve's --- as if it was an act of sacrilege! Sorry, I will remain
      > > > free to use the word *plundering*, *vampirism* or whatever, if I
      > feel
      > > it
      > > > is the *correct* word to speak my mind. I'm well aware that there
      > are
      > > > Heindel and Tomberg fans out there, including Anthros, and I really
      > > > don't mind, why the hell should I? --- but nothing is going to stop
      > me
      > > > from calling a spade a spade ("un chat un chat", salut Tom! :-) ,
      > and
      > > > pointing at *objective enemies* of the Master and his Masterwork,
      > > > especially on a public list named --- "Anthroposophia & Rudolf
      > Steiner
      > > > Forum". Carol, your above statement is --- a dangerous
      > understatement!
      > > > The following passage (1967) comes from Valentin Tomberg's book
      > > > *Lazarus, komm heraus* [Verlag Herder Basel 1985], as quoted in the
      > > > famous *Der Fall Tomberg* --- I'm translating from the German:
      > > > ************* "But unfortunately (for reasons we don't need to go
      > into
      > > > here), Rudolf Steiner wanted or had to give his work in the form of
      > a
      > > > science, the so-called spiritual science. As a result, the third
      > > aspect
      > > > of the one and indivisible Trinity Way,Truth and Life - namely Life
      > -
      > > > got less than its fair share. For the scientific form in which the
      > > logic
      > > > of the Logos was forced into and thus restricted, left no room for
      > > pure
      > > > mysticism and spiritual magic, i.e. 'Life'. Thus the great
      > achievement
      > > > in thinking and will in Anthroposophy has no Life [und der insofern
      > > das
      > > > 'Leben' fehlt] insofar as it is neither mystical nor magical
      > > > [unmystisch und unmagisch]. Rudolf Steiner himself was aware of this
      > > > essential deficiency. For that reason, he pointed full of hope to
      > the
      > > > appearance of a successor (of the Bodhisattva), who would remedy
      > this
      > > > deficiency and fully develop the Trinity of Way, Truth and Life."
      > > > ************** Well, let me tell you, Carol, the first word that
      > > > crosses my mind is the German word *teuflisch*! --- yes, "devilish"
      > in
      > > > English, "diabolique" en Français... Here,Tomberg is certainly
      > > *not*
      > > > whining about the many dull lifeless Anthros he came to know or had
      > to
      > > > put up with... He is *pontifically* declaring nothing less than:
      > > Rudolf
      > > > Steiner's spiritual science is "unfortunately" --- inherently
      > > lifeless!
      > > > --- and because of that, Rudolf Steiner had high hopes that *Mr
      > > Tomberg
      > > > the Bodhisattva* would come to complete - i.e. to bring "Life" to -
      > > his
      > > > work... Honestly, I don't think I've ever heard such a pompously
      > > > idiotic and evil-smelling characterization of Anthroposophy! In
      > fact,
      > > no
      > > > one will ever persuade me that this is *not* the objective result of
      > a
      > > > purely demonic inspiration... Elias is the "Way", Moses is the
      > > > "Truth" --- thus the wicked pernicious Tomberg is actually
      > insinuating
      > > > [subliminally?] that due to its scientific form, Rudolf Steiner's
      > > > Masterwork is [in reality] --- inherently, intrinsically void of the
      > > > Christ, of "Life" itself!... What a pathetic load of pretentious and
      > > > evil-minded esoteric crap... Steiner systematically rejected what he
      > > > termed "false mysticism" --- and that's why the pathologically
      > > > self-important wannabe Bodhisattva is whining! Tomberg obviously
      > never
      > > > managed to pull himself up to experiencing the "spiritual magic" and
      > > > "pure mysticism" [literally!] that comes with the *solar life*
      > > inherent
      > > > in Steiner's - living! - spiritual scientific wisdom! No wonder,
      > btw,
      > > > that he found refuge in the Roman Church --- which endeavors nothing
      > > > less than *to carry out an abortion!* on the Consciousness Soul...
      > [I
      > > > alluded to this before, on the AT]. Anyway, his words above clearly
      > > > demonstrate that Tomberg is a "plunderer" in the strongest sense of
      > > the
      > > > word: He unsuccessfully made a grab at Michael's intelligence and
      > > > Sword --- but he undoubtedly stabbed Michael in the back!!! So did
      > > > Heindel. --- Many other unsolicited applications :-) Maybe the
      > > > irony of it all is that Tomberg's book [Lazarus, Come Forth!] is
      > > > available from the Anthroposophic Press --- while the Rudolf Steiner
      > > > Press in London outrageously "puts a gag over Rudolf Steiner's
      > mouth"
      > > > --- surreptitiously deleting a lecture (March 3, 1923) from GA 349.
      > > > Very symptomatic --- and truly pathetic!... Jean-Marc
      > > > ====================================================
      > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > J-M: "Carol, I merely mentioned Heindel and Tomberg as examples of
      > > > > people who made the most of Rudolf Steiner's teachings --- and
      > took
      > > > off,
      > > > > with the self-important conviction that the small [theosophical]
      > > > > anthroposophical circle couldn't accommodate their higher
      > destinies,
      > > > and
      > > > > that perhaps the world deserved better than Rudolf Steiner and the
      > > > > spiritual treasure they fed on - or is it plundered? "
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm not sure you've painted the picture to the extent that you
      > > could.
      > > > > The 'free' world's open air even then was much less suffocating
      > than
      > > > > what was available within the confines of the (Theosophical)
      > > > > Anthroposophical Society of the 30s, 40s.
      > > > >
      > > > > We now have the internet, spanning the globe, with the opportunity
      > > to
      > > > > form ideological exchanges from vast pool of living individuals.
      > > This
      > > > > was not the case at the time of Tomberg's life, and I can't
      > comment
      > > on
      > > > > Heindel's case, seeing as I haven't investigated the conditions
      > and
      > > > > events of his life.
      > > > >
      > > > > Did Tomberg actually feed off of the spiritual treasure of Rudolf
      > > > > Steiner, or perhaps plunder it? We know that R S worked closely
      > with
      > > > > Higher Beings and so this spiritual treasure of which you refer
      > must
      > > > in
      > > > > itself be spiritualy furtile and alive. That Tomberg's soul
      > > responded
      > > > to
      > > > > this source of living 'information' having been presented to the
      > > world
      > > > > through Rudolf Steiner is 'something in itself', that he
      > critisized
      > > > the
      > > > > fact that a fundamental spirit 'magical element' was lacking in
      > the
      > > > > Anthroposophical experience of many he came to know, is also
      > > > 'something
      > > > > in itself'. How he latter managed to 'pour' out of himself, what
      > > > > spiritual flood still remained active within his soul, once he was
      > > > > 'shunned' from and left the society, is quite particular. I
      > beleive
      > > it
      > > > > is up to Anthros who came along after him to 'discover' the
      > meaning
      > > > > behind the particularities of this man's incarnation.
      > > > >
      > > > > You mentioned 'plundered'? You know Jean-Marc, it's very likely
      > that
      > > > > when we regain the Spirit Realm, we will very quickly discover in
      > > > which
      > > > > areas, and likely this will be a good many, in which we
      > individualy
      > > > > 'plundered' Anthroposophy, out of clumsiness and unconsciousness.
      > > > >
      > > > > And then, would your 'horizontal perspective' also qualify as
      > > > 'linear'?
      > > > > If this be the case, it would be necessarily be limited.
      > > > >
      > > > > J-M: "And, as a matter of fact, if Steve could free himself from
      > his
      > > > > terrible past, the chances are, imho, he would be much more in
      > line
      > > > with
      > > > > the *genuine* impulse of anthroposophical spiritual science ---
      > than
      > > > > Tomberg ever was."
      > > > >
      > > > > For heaven's sake Jean-Marc, we have all experienced childhood
      > > traumas
      > > > > which then set our destiny's on course. Steve appears extremely
      > > > insular
      > > > > about many of his 'lived moments' and minutely studies them. If
      > you
      > > > > were to draw into this certain conditions of his previous
      > > incarnation,
      > > > > you could then understand the reason for his need for simplicity
      > on
      > > > > this, his current spiritual path.
      > > > >
      > > > > We do each carry different biographic antecendents, and so we
      > treat
      > > > out
      > > > > current 'childhood traumas' in different ways. For example, take a
      > > > look
      > > > > at Bradford's early life; he lost his very young mother at the age
      > > of
      > > > 3.
      > > > > This would normally constitute a major trauma for a child., Then,
      > > > little
      > > > > Bradford continues his life as the beloved child of a young adult
      > > who
      > > > > has left this world as such, in other words, as a soul who works
      > out
      > > > of
      > > > > the spirit realm with this particularity - which itself
      > > distinguishes
      > > > > the manner in which her soul reaches out to loved ones into
      > > 'physical'
      > > > > space. Do you hear Bradford raving about this very intimate
      > > > 'sensitive'
      > > > > phenomena? No, because the conditions of his previous incarnations
      > > > have
      > > > > him working with THIS subtle substance in a very discreet manner
      > > which
      > > > > strongly contrasts the way in which Steve works with his
      > conditions
      > > of
      > > > > destiny.
      > > > >
      > > > > Neither can be truly judged as wrong or right, they simply and
      > > > > objectively represent distinctness in the spiritual paths of given
      > > > > souls.
      > > > >
      > > > > I'm mildly curious Jean-Marc, what would be some of the
      > > 'landbreaking'
      > > > > or perhaps 'soul shattering' conditions of your particular destiny
      > > > which
      > > > > may have allowed your own 'unearthing' as it were, of your
      > spiritual
      > > > > heritage or which may have permitted you to gather around for
      > > > yourself,
      > > > > the spiritual means for progressing on your path?
      > > > >
      > > > > And finally, perhaps once Steve establishes a stronger, developing
      > > > > Anthroposophical soul experience for himself, he will be able to
      > > > secure
      > > > > ONE 'particular' advantage over Tomberg in that he would have at
      > his
      > > > > disposal, through the conditions of our modern 'information era' ,
      > > the
      > > > > means to expand himself with more chances of human understanding
      > and
      > > > > encouragement, in pretty much the same way he uses it today.
      > > > >
      > > > > Carol.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" jmnguyen@ wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Carol wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "Jean-Marc, I know that Steve evades answering directly to
      > > questions
      > > > > he
      > > > > > can't handle, uses many, many 'forms' to acheive this, flees,
      > and
      > > > > often
      > > > > > makes his come backs by cleverly elevating himself above others
      > > with
      > > > > > whom he feels vulnerable through insult etc, but to bring in
      > > Tomberg
      > > > > > and place his name next to Steve's , is in my humble opinion,
      > > going
      > > > > over
      > > > > > the edge."
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
      > \
      > > \
      > > > \
      > > > > \
      > > > > > --------------- Carol, I merely mentioned Heindel and Tomberg as
      > > > > > examples of people who made the most of Rudolf Steiner's
      > teachings
      > > > ---
      > > > > > and took off, with the self-important conviction that the small
      > > > > > [theosophical] anthroposophical circle couldn't accommodate
      > their
      > > > > higher
      > > > > > destinies, and that perhaps the world deserved better than
      > Rudolf
      > > > > > Steiner and the spiritual treasure they fed on - or is it
      > > plundered?
      > > > > > Besides, I have no difficulty whatsoever placing Tomberg's name
      > > next
      > > > > to
      > > > > > Steve's --- for the simple reason that I'm not fond of
      > *vertical*
      > > or
      > > > > > *hierarchical* comparisons. I much prefer to look at the
      > specific
      > > > > > individual nature of *all* human beings --- from a *horizontal*
      > > > > > perspective. And, as a matter of fact, if Steve could free
      > himself
      > > > > > from his terrible past, the chances are, imho, he would be much
      > > more
      > > > > in
      > > > > > line with the *genuine* impulse of anthroposophical spiritual
      > > > science
      > > > > > --- than Tomberg ever was. Regarding Steve himself, believe me,
      > I
      > > > had
      > > > > > no particular "desire" to describe his shortcomings... I
      > certainly
      > > > > > pointed at them, but merely as a necessary *means* of reaching a
      > > > > > specific *goal*. After all, maybe it is true that "the end
      > > justifies
      > > > > > the means"... Jean-Marc
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > =====================================================
      > > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jean-Marc: "...into a new renegade like Tomberg."
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jean-Marc, I know that Steve evades answering directly to
      > > > questions
      > > > > he
      > > > > > > can't handle, uses many, many 'forms' to acheive this, flees,
      > > and
      > > > > > often
      > > > > > > makes his come backs by cleverly elevating himself above
      > others
      > > > with
      > > > > > > whom he feels vulnerable through insult etc, but to bring in
      > > > Tomberg
      > > > > > > and place his name next to Steve's , is in my humble opinion,
      > > > going
      > > > > > over
      > > > > > > the edge.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jean-Marc, you know, I've noticed all around me, and within
      > > myself
      > > > > > that
      > > > > > > there is a massive new quality of 'tension' to contend with. (
      > > > > > Sarkozy's
      > > > > > > individuality is even being driven into our collective psyche
      > > over
      > > > > > here,
      > > > > > > I suspect by sinister means as well, the electo-magnetic
      > > spectrum
      > > > is
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > > elistist's newest 'playhouse', this I hope that you might have
      > > > > > noticed.
      > > > > > > ) The reason I bring this up is I thought you might want to
      > > check
      > > > to
      > > > > > see
      > > > > > > that your desire to describe to Steve his shortcomings is not
      > > > being
      > > > > > > overly influenced by your own individual plight of needing to
      > > > 'tame'
      > > > > > an
      > > > > > > extremely pervasive 'chaotic element ' which inevitably
      > > resonates
      > > > > > within
      > > > > > > yourself, but which has it's place within our shared 'ambient'
      > > > > > physical
      > > > > > > and soul environment.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > (I'm not so sure that even Steve is attentive to this)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > As for Tomberg, I see no comparison. It seems to me that there
      > > was
      > > > > > > something far more organized and deeply spiritual taking place
      > > > > within
      > > > > > > this man, as well, since the Anthroposophical Society of the
      > day
      > > > was
      > > > > > > unable to 'host' all that this man had to offer, that he had
      > to
      > > > > > retract
      > > > > > > his soul forces and resort to sit with a less pertinent
      > 'etheric
      > > > > > stream'
      > > > > > > for the duration of his days. There is nothing arbritrary in
      > > human
      > > > > > life,
      > > > > > > from a spiritual perspective, and so it would follow that an
      > > > overall
      > > > > > > configuration representing Tomberg's lived destiny , might
      > > suggest
      > > > > not
      > > > > > > so much an individual who simply experienced conflict with the
      > > > > > > Anthroposophical society and then went his way etc, but an
      > > > extremely
      > > > > > > spiritualy furtile individual, who through accident and
      > > > inconvience,
      > > > > > was
      > > > > > > led 'on his way' to let fall living spiritual 'seeds' in areas
      > > > > outside
      > > > > > > of the range of the society.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Carol.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" jmnguyen@
      > > wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > Carol wrote: "(...) I see no imbalance through the fact that
      > > J-M
      > > > > > > > alluded to hyper egoism among other things on your part
      > (...)
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
      > \
      > > \
      > > > \
      > > > > \
      > > > > > \
      > > > > > > \
      > > > > > > > -------------- Okay, let me try to clarify... If one wants
      > to
      > > > > > > > understand just about *every* aspect of Steve's attitude and
      > > > > > behavior
      > > > > > > on
      > > > > > > > the list ( and even the *real reason* why he was expelled
      > from
      > > > > other
      > > > > > > > lists), all one needs is to consider the rich amount of
      > > > > > > phenomenological
      > > > > > > > evidence --- from a *symptomatological* standpoint. For
      > > > instance,
      > > > > > > > Steve's inimitable pompous style, his claim to initiate
      > > status,
      > > > > his
      > > > > > > > constant boasting as far as his spiritual research is
      > > concerned,
      > > > > his
      > > > > > > > compulsive tendency to despise anyone for questioning the
      > > > precious
      > > > > > > > "Hale-saids" (his nearly *infallible* pronouncements), his
      > > > > recurrent
      > > > > > > > need to belittle others in order to ensure his dominating
      > > > > position,
      > > > > > > his
      > > > > > > > diverting and evading techniques, his childish reactive
      > > > > > > aggressiveness,
      > > > > > > > his petty jealousies (nearly all the gals in town being
      > > > supposedly
      > > > > > in
      > > > > > > > love with his *rival*, the Casanova with the Texan hat :-),
      > > > etc...
      > > > > > In
      > > > > > > > other words, the massive egotism I was alluding to is
      > > > > *pathological*
      > > > > > > in
      > > > > > > > the sense that it is the expression of a *superiority
      > complex*
      > > > ---
      > > > > > > which
      > > > > > > > is itself a delusive albeit vitally necessary means of
      > coping
      > > > with
      > > > > a
      > > > > > > > deep-rooted feeling of inferiority (or inferioirity
      > complex).
      > > > > Again,
      > > > > > > > all one needs is to consider Steve's own public confession
      > so
      > > to
      > > > > > speak
      > > > > > > > [Message # 16377] --- disregarding Steve's own
      > self-deceptive
      > > > > > > > interpretations of course, for instance: "experiencing anger
      > > [a
      > > > > > > violent
      > > > > > > > expression of the Ego] for the first time in his life" as
      > > being
      > > > > > > > equivalent to the stigmatization of Christians - which
      > results
      > > > > from
      > > > > > > > self-denial and love! Steve: "And, in fact, his father never
      > > did
      > > > > > take
      > > > > > > > him fishing. (...) and he struggled for years to forge a
      > > > > > relationship
      > > > > > > > with his father (...)" This is where the very deep-rooted
      > > > feeling
      > > > > of
      > > > > > > > inferiority, of being neglected, of being unjustly
      > > > underestimated
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > > pushed aside - likely originated. In May of 1980, Steve
      > hears
      > > a
      > > > > > > > "Voice". What did the *outer* [i.e. objective!!!] Voice tell
      > > > him?
      > > > > > The
      > > > > > > > benevolent outer Voice told him *exactly* what he
      > desperately
      > > > > wanted
      > > > > > > or
      > > > > > > > needed to hear --- in order that he could "finally find
      > > solace"
      > > > > > (sic)
      > > > > > > > and recover self-assurance, self'esteem, the redeeming
      > feeling
      > > > of
      > > > > > > > self-worth. Years later, Steve will *interpret* this event
      > > from
      > > > an
      > > > > > > > anthroposophical perspective --- and his interpretation is
      > > again
      > > > a
      > > > > > > > gratifying compensation for the unfair devaluation and the
      > > lack
      > > > of
      > > > > > > > recognition he experienced as a child. So, what's the
      > problem
      > > > from
      > > > > > an
      > > > > > > > alchemical point of view? The problem is that Steve's
      > > unresolved
      > > > > > > > *personal issue* is like a piece of rusty iron which
      > > constantly
      > > > > > > > interferes in, constantly pollutes, constantly *corrupts*
      > his
      > > > > > > > anthroposophical endeavor --- and the recent exchange on
      > Nero
      > > > has
      > > > > > > > clearly shown that Steve, as if enslaved by his own
      > creature,
      > > > will
      > > > > > > have
      > > > > > > > no hesitation in choosing between "Steiner-saids" and
      > > > > > "Hale-saids"...
      > > > > > > If
      > > > > > > > this personal issue is not addressed with genuine
      > truthfulness
      > > > and
      > > > > > > > courage by Steve, this sad state of affairs could very well
      > > > > > eventually
      > > > > > > > degenerate into a new *dissident*, into a new *plagiarist*
      > > like
      > > > > Max
      > > > > > > > Heindel, into a new renegade like Tomberg, i.e. into a new
      > > > > > *objective
      > > > > > > > enemy* of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. Jean-Marc
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > =====================================================
      > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@
      > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Steve: "Your use of capitals is nonetheless impressive,
      > but
      > > > what
      > > > > > > does
      > > > > > > > > that mean concerning YOUR authority?"
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > You make me laugh there Steve. That wasn't so bad.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > My question is, why not patiently present the facts which
      > > > you've
      > > > > > > > > discussed, those which concern the Crown Prince , in an
      > > > > objective,
      > > > > > > > > scientific manner, to J-M within a spirit of generosity,
      > in
      > > > > other
      > > > > > > > words,
      > > > > > > > > as a social soul offering? Then, he could review them and
      > > > > reflect
      > > > > > > upon
      > > > > > > > > them and how they might contradict Steiner's clairvoyant
      > and
      > > > > > > otherwise
      > > > > > > > > account of the events.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > And further, I see no imbalance through the fact that J-M
      > > > > alluded
      > > > > > to
      > > > > > > > > hyper egoism among other things on your part- in the past
      > > few
      > > > > > posts
      > > > > > > of
      > > > > > > > > yours, you've accused ME of being materialistic, catty and
      > > > > likely
      > > > > > > much
      > > > > > > > > more. (Please take note that I NEVER take those
      > designations
      > > > > > > seriously
      > > > > > > > > and basically skip over them.)
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > In fact, it would likewise be 'infantile' to take the time
      > > to
      > > > > > gather
      > > > > > > > up,
      > > > > > > > > seperate into 'camps' and then COUNT each and every
      > > derogative
      > > > > > > > personal
      > > > > > > > > description having been tossed into posts. Though it's
      > funny
      > > > > that
      > > > > > it
      > > > > > > > > seems to me that a Steve's 'camp' would come out champion
      > if
      > > > > such
      > > > > > > were
      > > > > > > > > the case.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > In the end, Steve, I will commend you once again; you
      > stayed
      > > > > > pretty
      > > > > > > > > 'cool' and even threw in a very tiny bit of humour.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Re: 'J-M's despicable treatment of your's truly'.
      > Jean-Marc
      > > > was
      > > > > > > > > critical of what and how you presented your current
      > > > 'argument',
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > > > referred to past quotes of yours which revealed a lack of
      > > > > > > consistency.
      > > > > > > > > (Please keep in mind that the French , Italians and likely
      > > the
      > > > > > > > Spanish,
      > > > > > > > > to my knowledge, ENJOY discussions which resemble debates.
      > > > They
      > > > > > like
      > > > > > > > to
      > > > > > > > > delve deep into issues. It's part of their traditional
      > > > culture-
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > it
      > > > > > > > > reveals 'culture'. As well, it allows personal
      > observations
      > > > and
      > > > > > > > > reflections to be easily shared within the social sphere.)
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Do you perhaps, favour the 'British' approach?
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Carol.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Hale"
      > > > > sardisian01@
      > > > > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol"
      > > organicethics@
      > > > > > > > > > wrote:
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn: "So, really Steve is being quite polite. And
      > > honest
      > > > > as
      > > > > > > > well,
      > > > > > > > > > why
      > > > > > > > > > > should he not speak how he feels. He is doing you a
      > > favour
      > > > > in
      > > > > > > your
      > > > > > > > > > > conscious soul progression. He doesn't have too."
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn, the way I see it, Steve participates on this
      > > > > > > Anthroposophic
      > > > > > > > > > forum
      > > > > > > > > > > to avoid individual isolation. It is he who in the
      > first
      > > > > > > instance
      > > > > > > > > > who
      > > > > > > > > > > benefits from participation- in the event that the
      > depth
      > > > of
      > > > > > > > > > discussion
      > > > > > > > > > > is on par with his level of spiritual development. I
      > > > beleive
      > > > > > > that
      > > > > > > > > > this
      > > > > > > > > > > is the case.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Why was I so certain that Caryn's appreciated defense of
      > > me
      > > > > > would
      > > > > > > > get
      > > > > > > > > > a response such as this from you, Carol? Because you are
      > > so
      > > > > > > > > > predictable, that's why. I will so say, though, that you
      > > are
      > > > > > > correct
      > > > > > > > > > in my appreciation of this participation. The reason is
      > > > > because
      > > > > > I
      > > > > > > > > > say it alot. The isolation comment is your notion.
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn: "This should be respected; in fact respect is
      > > > > demanded
      > > > > > if
      > > > > > > > you
      > > > > > > > > > > enter the halls of anthroposophy and come upon an
      > > > > experienced
      > > > > > > > > > > anthroposophist."
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > I beleive that the moderator is also well suited to
      > > judge
      > > > > > > whether
      > > > > > > > a
      > > > > > > > > > > discussion has gone way overboard. I, for one, have
      > seen
      > > > no
      > > > > > > > > > injustice in
      > > > > > > > > > > the recent discourse between J-M and Steve. J-M has
      > been
      > > > > very
      > > > > > > FIRM
      > > > > > > > > > and
      > > > > > > > > > > Steve is in a position to understand the concepts
      > which
      > > he
      > > > > put
      > > > > > > > > > forth. I
      > > > > > > > > > > see balance throughout this. If Steve shoul need to
      > take
      > > > > some
      > > > > > > time
      > > > > > > > > > to
      > > > > > > > > > > assimulate or reflect, then allot him this without
      > > blaming
      > > > > J-M
      > > > > > > for
      > > > > > > > > > > having presented his OWN exceptional research work.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Steve's been busy the last few days rather than mulling
      > > over
      > > > > > > > stubborn
      > > > > > > > > > little J-M's precious "Steiner-saids". As for concepts,
      > > what
      > > > > > > > > > concepts? You mean concepts like: autohagiographical,
      > > > > massively
      > > > > > > > > > pathological ego, rusty iron, sly deception toward the
      > > > mighty
      > > > > > > > Steiner
      > > > > > > > > > speaks, etc? Remember that this is all about research
      > > > results
      > > > > > > > > > concerning the nature of the death of Rudolf, Crown
      > Prince
      > > > of
      > > > > > > > > > Austria, and it can be shown that he died a very violent
      > > > > death,
      > > > > > > > along
      > > > > > > > > > with Maria Vetsera, whose body was exhumed twice in
      > order
      > > to
      > > > > > prove
      > > > > > > > > > that she was bludgeoned in the head and never shot. The
      > > > Crown
      > > > > > > Prince
      > > > > > > > > > had been shot six times with a gun that was not his;
      > also
      > > > the
      > > > > > > victim
      > > > > > > > > > of a violent struggle before being shot. His head was
      > > hooded
      > > > > in
      > > > > > > > > > order to hide the evidence that he was murdered. It's
      > all
      > > > > there
      > > > > > > for
      > > > > > > > > > the looking up, but certainly an inconvenience for those
      > > who
      > > > > > don't
      > > > > > > > > > want to bother. Ref. "The Mayerling Murder", by Victor
      > > > > Wolfson,
      > > > > > > > > > 1969, for a detailed account of what was largely a
      > > struggle
      > > > > for
      > > > > > > > power
      > > > > > > > > > between Rudolf, loved by the people, and Wilhelm II, the
      > > > hated
      > > > > > > > kaiser
      > > > > > > > > > with the withered left arm, and the oh-so immature
      > > > > personality.
      > > > > > A
      > > > > > > > > > very dangerous fellow.
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn: "Steve and Bradford are the only two people
      > (and
      > > a
      > > > > few
      > > > > > > > > > others who
      > > > > > > > > > > keep a lower profile) in the whole of the
      > anthroposophy
      > > > > groups
      > > > > > > who
      > > > > > > > > > have
      > > > > > > > > > > cognition of spiritual science working towards
      > > > anthroposophy
      > > > > > and
      > > > > > > > > > make an
      > > > > > > > > > > effort to be with us."
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn, through this statement, you reveal somewhat of
      > an
      > > > > > > infantile
      > > > > > > > l
      > > > > > > > > > > understanding of Anthroposophy. For what you might
      > > > overlook,
      > > > > > you
      > > > > > > > > > should
      > > > > > > > > > > refrain from passing judgements- that's my point of
      > > view.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Infantile, why? This forum has only a very few that
      > > > contribute
      > > > > > on
      > > > > > > a
      > > > > > > > > > regular basis here for the past few years, and neither
      > J-M
      > > > or
      > > > > > the
      > > > > > > > > > moderator are among them. Caryn has become a regular and
      > > > > quality
      > > > > > > > > > contributor here, and no one can deny that. You as well.
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn: "It is not taken lightly; it is an earned right
      > > > > through
      > > > > > > > many
      > > > > > > > > > past
      > > > > > > > > > > lives of hard work. The amount of work Steve
      > > > > > > > > > > and Bradford put into the forum demands respect and if
      > > it
      > > > is
      > > > > > not
      > > > > > > > > > > acknowledged or forth coming what are you doing in
      > > > > > > anthroposophy?"
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Caryn, you are NO hostess to the 'Halls of
      > > Anthroposophy',
      > > > > as
      > > > > > > you
      > > > > > > > > > call
      > > > > > > > > > > it, nor are you assigned any authoritative position
      > for
      > > > > > > screening
      > > > > > > > > > people
      > > > > > > > > > > who present themselves within the Anthroposophical
      > > > Movement.
      > > > > > > THIS,
      > > > > > > > > > my
      > > > > > > > > > > dear, is done on the SUPERSENSIBLE level, through the
      > > work
      > > > > of
      > > > > > > > HIGHER
      > > > > > > > > > > BEINGS.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Caryn is remarking on J-M's rather despicable treatment
      > of
      > > > > yours
      > > > > > > > > > truly. It is not necessary for you to get 'catty' with
      > > her.
      > > > > Your
      > > > > > > > > > use of capitals is nonetheless impressive, but what does
      > > > that
      > > > > > mean
      > > > > > > > > > concerning YOUR authority?
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > Steve
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >

    • Stephen Hale
      ... forces ... had ... the ... In this [second] kind of initiation the disciple s soul was drawn out of his inner being, whereby he could participate in the
      Message 111 of 111 , Sep 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment


        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:
        >
        > I still find that `psychic life` development implies engaging the forces
        > of the inner soul towards astral/devachanic inner
        > perception/clairvoyance. A condition of sleep implies astral
        > experience.
        >
        > The second stream, requires an extroverted application. Experience is
        > drawn outward- to face the world, all things manifest, to witness form
        > and then further on, the `geometric` principal of astral determination
        > . To view the workings of the living world is first and foremost to
        > witness etheric forces furnishing mobility and multiplicity of form.
        > Pride suggests a meeting with the outside manifest world. The pupil had
        > at first, to disregard his inner `astral' experience in order
        > to more solidly greet the manifest world- which is why I associated the
        > body/etheric to this latter type of initiation
        .
        >
        > I see that there are different ways of looking at it- or would it be
        > more correct to say- there`s a paradox to this.

        In this [second] kind of initiation the disciple's soul was drawn out of his inner being, whereby he could participate in the events of the cosmos and raise himself to the soul-spiritual essence permeating the universe. His experience differed markedly from ordinary contemplation of nature because he felt he lived within the very soul of the universe. In not a bad but a good sense, he was beside himself. He was, though one hesitates to use this word because it has taken on an unpleasant connotation, in ecstasy. Upon achieving this union with the cosmos he could say to himself that through living in the universe and through experiencing its most intimate soul-spiritual forces, he had come to realize that everywhere the final goal of the cosmos is the creation of man. Did man not exist, the whole creation could not fulfill its end, because he was the meaning of the cosmos.

        Carol, it is not possible to remove the Etheric Body from the physical body without death occurring immediately.  Therefore, for this reason alone the second type of ancient mystery stream concerns the Astral Body.  Consider all that the lecture:  The Work of the Angels in Man's Astral Body gives as a point of further reference for what now takes place in the state of dreamless sleep.   Dream sleep involves the etheric body and its close union with the physical body. 

        During sleeping we interact with the spiritual worlds when the astral-ego organization leaves the etheric-physical organization and engages its spiritual communion in the astral and higher devachanic realms.  The ego, as such in our present development, is a silent witness to the work of the astral body in receiving the impressions of the angelic hierarchies, which are then carried down into the etheric body.  Dreaming is an etheric activity conducted in middle devachan by the astral body, in which our past lives are traveled through and mixed in with the recent physical body experiences of the present life.  Chaos is the general order of the dream experience, which is countered by the objectively ordered pictures of the waking conscious (relative) experience.  Waking up from a dream is felt entirely in the etheric body as a present-moment experience of consciousness.  As soon as the outer world is detected this consciousness sinks down into the subconscious and the dream is forgotten in favor of relative waking consciousness. 

        Practice can allow one to develop the ability to remain within the present-moment consciousness when first awakening as a meditative exercise.  Spiritual science cultivates this desire to remain within the fold of the waking dream experience wherein many truths of independently investigated subjects are intuited and further inspired into imaginative content.

        But as soon as the eyes and ears turn to the sense world, a buffer is created between the environment and the previously felt inner domain, and that which had just been on the surface sinks down into the famed "subconsciousness" of Freud. 

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.