Re: Anthroposophical Adult Education
- S: "In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you yourself branded me
Mephistopheles in the flesh"
I looked it over, and noticed that I FIRST wrote 'a servant of Satan",
and then made a connection between your 'stated words' and
Mephistopheles manner of speaking.
I most certainly did not APPOINT you as the embodiment of Satan.
You see Steve, I find it very difficult to take you on - your very
nature seems to create, with the greatest of ease, an effect of
'spiritual abuse' not only on me, but on others as well.
I've been trying to pin point exactly how your approach manages this
effect, but I find that your innate trickery just expands itself,
the more I close in on YOU.
That I was so expressive in that post which you brought up from the
past, illustrates the amplitude of my resistence to your soul's nature,
my own rising up against what effect which your soul has, not only on
me, but on others happenning on this list, as well.
That's all for now. C.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "carol" organicethics@
> > S: « You're lashing out again, Carol. »
> > No I'm not, I'm trying to clear up a Luciferic mistake which I saw,
> > directly before me, on this Anthroposophy discussion site.
> > S: « Using 'wiki' to the fullest measure of your unbridled
> > and judgment-making skill. »which
> > Look, it's one of the things which came up when I searched the
> topic in
> > question and it furnished at least one important indication
> > I used - the other info are from non-wiki sites.soul-spiritual
> > « Just how does that look and feel to the collective
> > fabric that strives to work so well in human relationships? »soul-spiritual
> > Sorry, I find your logic a little off on this question- so I'll cut
> > up in sections, if you don't mind ?
> > «Just how does that look and feel to the collective
> > fabric ?»the
> > It looks like a brotherly (Michealmic) effort to scoop someone out
> > certain dangers which an overly Luciferic soul disposition exposes
> > to and the dangers being : serving Ahrimanic forces, both on
> > persoal and collective levels.so
> > S: «...the collective soul-spiritual fabric that strives to work
> > well in human relationships»you
> > Steve, INDIVIDUAL souls strive to work well in human relationships,
> > the collective soul/spiritual fabric comprises the
> connective 'fibres'
> > linking all souls together.
> > Everyone finds themselves acting, one way or another, within the
> > collective soul/spiritual fabric - it's just that it's location is
> on a
> > much more rarefied spiritual plane than our collective outward one -
> > because of it's rarefied spiritual caracteristic, is also has the
> > quality of drawing into it the activities and intentions of Beings
> > the Higher Hierarchies as well.
> > S: «Do you ever attempt to apply healing etheric forces, or are
> > just overly sensitive and reactive?»where
> > I don't really feel that it's my «place» to decide when and
> > I should «apply» healing etheric forces. I let my more remote
> > spiritual self take full charge of this matter.
> > I stick to the domain of thought images/forces and hope that
> > through them, I'm able to transmit somewhat of the Christic LIGHT
> > principal.
> > S: « ...or are you just overly sensitive and reactive? For
> > generally solve nothing. »
> > I understand that you feel 'injustice' has been dished to you
> through my
> > post. However, I also feel that it is you who is reactive and overly
> > sensitive (not objective in the spiritual science sense) in order to
> > safeguard the reasoning behind your choice to develop your
> > destiny through this organisation.
> > I don't find the MRA organisation is condusive to the aspirations of
> > Anthroposophy - I find that it's underlying logic and
> > for existence weighs in, too strongly, on materialistic
> perception and
> > aspirations.
> > Sorry, Carol.
> Carol, MRA was from the beginning, very conducive to anthroposophical
> initiatives, then it became IOC around 2000. This has led to the
> very same disappointments that we see here with the CFS vs. the GAS
> in the further progression of time and the undermining of original
> goals and aims for a future wherein the principles of the philosophy
> of freedom hold good for all.
> I truly do think you label me very erroneously as being materialistic
> in nature and being, and motive and outcome. We have been
> discoursing for over two years now on this list, and you give very
> little leeway outside of your own, apparently very cloistered,
> In my opinion, you waffle very easily between luciferic and ahrimanic
> influences, and their possession of one's soul. Please note: this is
> a very elementary and rather sophomoric tendency seen in american
> anthropops especially. In fact, it wasn't that long ago that you
> yourself branded me Mephistopheles in the flesh, which means that
> Ahriman's third millennium incarnation has taken place in yours truly.
> Remembers this one, Carol?
- Re: "Carol, I have great need to impart a truth that you and others may
not yet be able to accept. It concerns how Steiner's selfless
efforts on behalf of CC have been perverted in the aftermath of his
death. Here is the lecture, as well as a specific notation
concerning where, how, and why the dividing lines are drawn:... "
OK, this renewal impulse must differ in some form on how the regular
protestant denominations exercises the 'cultus' principal. That Rudolf
Steiner allowed himself to indicate how to best exercise this cult
principal - must mean that, somehow or another, it comes to reach more
directly to a specific goal.
I'm sorry, I've not sat in on a mass of the Christian Community - so I
can't really judge - though Mark W. did tell me that he, as an
Anthroposophist, was able to witness a little more of an Etheric
Christic manifestation in a Christian Community mass than what he could
come to see of 'IT' in a Catholic mass. (ex.the moment of the raising
of bread and wine).
A few years back, I attended a United Church Christmas mass with one of
my sisters. Through this 'form of cultus' I noticed that the Christic
principal presented itself solely as a 'personalized touch'.
I guess I'll have to eventually force myself to go to a Christian
Community mass to be able to derive for myself, my own personal
assessment of it.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Stephen Hale" <sardisian01@...>
> --- In email@example.com, "carol" organicethics@
> > S: « Steiner gave much supporting indication for this need in our
> > time, especially the nature of Soradt's third incarnation due to
> > in 1998.
> > Alas, they never followed through on his initiative to them to
> > accomplish this task, and haven't, to this very day. Very par for
> > course, it seems, in the overall re-assessment of what was sought;
> > over nine days, then over nine months, and tragically not
> forthcoming in
> > the nine years leading to 1933. »
> > Steve, the Christian Community cultivates a deepened Impulse
> > must therefore look for it's 'effects' on a deepened soul level.-that
> > the time 'element' does not apply so immediately.
> > You mentioned the 'Sorat' incarnation - another deep mystery, with
> > external ramifications of course. I think you are going to have to
> > used to the idea that Rudolf Steiner had, in his spirit, to set
> > things up for humanity; what necessary safeguards i't' would need,
> > cover, not only the immediate, more external soul reflective
> > of man, but also all that applies to the underlying spiritual
> > evolutionary principal to which man himself belongs.
> > Therefore, from an external point of reference, it might seem that
> > Anthroposophy and, as well, the Christian Community are doing very
> > little in our time but this may not be necessarily the case.
> > Pathways may actually be being made on the finer human planes of
> > 'action', so to speak - the etheric, the astral (including higher)
> > even Devachanic.
> Carol, I have great need to impart a truth that you and others may
> not yet be able to accept. It concerns how Steiner's selfless
> efforts on behalf of CC have been perverted in the aftermath of his
> death. Here is the lecture, as well as a specific notation
> concerning where, how, and why the dividing lines are drawn:
> "For the welfare of both Movements it is essential that they should
> be held clearly apart. Therefore in the beginning, since everything
> depends on our developing the strength to carry out what we have set
> our will to do, it is absolutely necessary in these early days that
> the Movement for Religious Renewal should work in all directions in
> circles outside the Anthroposophical Movement; that therefore,
> neither as regards the acquisition of material means in order
> the matter be clearly understood I must also speak about theseflow
> things should it encroach on sources which in any event only
> with great difficulty for the Anthroposophical Movement, nor, becausebeen
> it does not at once succeed in finding adherents among non-
> Anthroposophists, should it, for example, make proselytes within the
> ranks of the Anthroposophists. Were it to do so, it would be doing
> something that would inevitably lead to the destruction of both
> Movements. It is really not a matter today of going forward with a
> certain fanaticism, but of being conscious that we can do what is
> necessary for man only when we work out of the necessity of the thing
> What I am now stating as consequences, were also equally the
> preliminary conditions for lending my assistance in the founding of
> the Movement for Religious Renewal, for only under these conditions
> could I assist it. If these preliminary conditions had not been
> there, the Movement for Religious Renewal would never have originated
> through my advice.
> Therefore I beg you to understand that it is necessary for the
> Movement for Religious Renewal to know that it must adhere to its
> starting point, that it has promised to look for its adherents
> outside the sphere of the Anthroposophical Movements, for it is there
> that they can be found in the natural way, and there they must be
> What I have said to you has not been said because of any anxiety lest
> something might be dug away from the Anthroposophical Movement, and
> it has certainly not been said out of any personal motive, but solely
> out of the necessity of the case itself. And it is also important to
> understand in what way alone it is possible to work rightly in each
> of these spheres of activity. It is indeed necessary that with regard
> to important matters we should state quite clearly how the case
> stands, for there is at the present time far too great a tendency to
> blur things and not to see them clearly. But clarity is essential
> today in every sphere.
> If therefore someone were to exclaim: The very one who himself put
> this Movement for Religious Renewal into the world now speaks like
> this!! ... well, my dear friends, the whole point is that if I had at
> any time spoken differently about these things, I should not have
> lent a hand towards founding this Movement for Religious Renewal. It
> must remain at its starting point. What I am now saying, I am of
> course saying merely in order that these things may be correctly
> understood in the Anthroposophical Society and so that it shall not
> be said (as is reported to have happened already): The
> Anthroposophical Movement did not get on very well, and so now they
> have founded the Movement for Religious Renewal as the right thing.
> I am quite sure that the very excellent and outstanding individuals
> who have founded the Movement for Religious Renewal will oppose any
> such legend most vigorously, and will also sternly refuse to make
> proselytes within the Anthroposophical Movement. But, as has
> said, the matter must be rightly understood within thenecessary
> Anthroposophical Movement itself.
> I know, my dear friends, that there are always some who find it
> unpleasant to hear explanations such as these which are
> from time to time, not in order to complain in one direction orit.
> another, nor for the sake of criticism, but solely in order to
> present something once and for all in its true light. I know there
> are always some who dislike it when clarity is substituted for
> nebulous obscurity. But this is absolutely essential for the welfare
> and growth of the Anthroposophical Movement as well as of the
> Movement for Religious Renewal. The Movement for Religious Renewal
> cannot flourish if it in any way damages the Anthroposophical
> This must be thoroughly understood, especially by Anthroposophists,
> so that whenever it is necessary to stand up for the rights of the
> matter, they may really be able to do so. When, therefore, there is
> any question about an anthroposophist's attitude towards religious
> renewal, he must be clear that his attitude can only be that of an
> adviser, that he gives what he can give in the way of spiritual
> possessions, and when it is a case of participating in the
> ceremonies, that he is conscious of doing so in order to help these
> ceremonies on their way. He alone can be a spiritual helper of the
> Movement for Religious Renewal who is himself first a good
> anthroposophist. But this Movement for Religious Renewal must be
> sustained, in every direction, by persons who, because of the
> particular configuration and tendencies of their spiritual life,
> cannot yet find their way into the Anthroposophical Society itself.
> I hope that none of you will now go to someone who is doing active
> work in the Movement for Religious Renewal and say: This or that has
> been said against it in Dornach. Nothing has been said against
> In love and in devotion to the spiritual world the Movement for
> Religious Renewal has been given counsel from out of the spiritual
> world, in order that it might rightly found itself. But the fact must
> be known by Anthroposophists that it has founded itse1f out of
> itself, that it has formed not, it is true, the content of its
> ritual, but the fact of its ritual, out of its own force and its own
> initiative, and that the essential core of the Anthroposophical
> Movement has nothing to do with the Movement for Religious Renewal.
> Certainly no wish could be stronger than mine that the Movement for
> Religious Renewal shall grow and flourish more and more, but always
> in adherence to the original intentions. Anthroposophical Groups must
> not be changed into communities for religious renewal, either in a
> materia1 or in a spiritual sense.
> I was obliged to say this today, for, as you know, counsel and advice
> had to be given for a Cult, a Cult whose growth in our present time
> is earnestly desired by me. In order that no misunderstanding should
> arise in regard to this Cult when I speak tomorrow of the conditions
> of the life of Cult in the spiritual world, I felt it necessary to
> insert these words today as an episode in our course of lectures."
> (The following night the first Goetheanum was destroyed by fire.)