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

Rép. : [anthroposophy] The Cup or the Sword

Expand Messages
  • danifyou@tv.videotron.ca
    ... De : danifyou@tv.videotron.ca ... De : Br. Ron Jouko, I do appreciate your thoughtful and in depth response ... This has been quite
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 27, 2002
      ----Message original -----
      De : danifyou@...


      ----Message original -----
      De : "Br. Ron"<rlloyd@...>
      Jouko, I do appreciate your thoughtful and in depth response
      to my question:

      > Do you consider true Christianity
      > a call for universal acceptance? Or is there sometimes
      > a righteous need for exclusivity?

      This has been quite an issue for me...(the issue of
      unconditional love vs discernment) so I studied your
      words below, carefully.

      For me, the 'New Age' movement has been a largely Luciferic
      attempt to suspend discernment in the name of 'unconditional
      love.' As qabalists know, there can be no real Mercy without
      the temperence of Severity, no real Love without Truth, no real
      acceptence without discernment.

      We are told that 'God is Love' and I have no reason to suspect
      otherwise. But I also believe that when we speak of 'Love' that we
      must know what we are talking about. In the 60s 'Love' was
      everybody sleeping with everybody. It was a great release
      and dissipation where discretion itself was the enemy.

      This guided me to examine the ethic that demanded not
      only follows the occult injunction to 'Know Thyself' but to
      likewise 'Know Thine Enemy' ....and it seems genuinely
      impossible to accomplish one without the other.

      I agree that we must follow Christ as the initial Impulse
      was transfrerred to the Physical Plane. But Jesus
      didn't love unconditionally. (ie, his killing of the fig tree,
      scourging of the money changers, and condemnation of
      the "brood of vipers"...the Sadducees and Pharisees)

      In the Michael School, it would be oxymoronic to do away
      with 'The Sword'....the question in my mind is just what
      is the right social and ethical use of this tool/weapon.
      =====

      Another way to describe my point...

      There is that story about Kali...
      There was a Demon that at each blood drop it was shedding in the Battle of Good against Evil, each drops were becoming in it's turn
      a demon.. So the Strategy Kali used was to use a Big Mouth and Tongue as to Lick it
      all.

      Let me[us] see that Story as the
      Encompassing Power of the Word,
      of the Tongue as a Sword. :)

      -Blue


      >--

      I got a clue if I may...
      To name things for what they are, identify
      what it is, and then say if we want it or not.
      To know, to be conscious of what really manifest to us and say if we want of that thing or not, instead of the all is fine and
      normal, "it has to be that way",
      "that's the life", "no choice",
      "that's the society"...

      To get rid of dumb-man no-will no-power no-speech no-thinking no-feeling...

      Remember that? 'Foundation Stone'...

      "Soul of Man...."

      I want Soul Man myself...
      But who else?...
      Let me speak with them, let me encounter Soul Man, the thing in which a Spirit may
      manifest in a LIVING way.... ;)

      -Blue

      Do we sit back and unconditionally smile upon terrorism,
      for example?


      Thanks again,

      In Warmth and Light,

      Br. Ron

      ==============================

      I'm not sure if the universal acceptance is the right word. I think
      that there must be a larger view than only the dicothomy between
      Lucifer and Ahriman. I mean that avoiding Lucifer we can run straight
      to Asuras clutches (and there's allways behind the jesuitic
      inspiration that doing evil in certain instances the result is good.
      Well, it might be so, but only after serious suffering). So let's get
      back to the beginning (of christianity).

      In Jesus Christ there was the Cosmic Christ present and in terms of
      human evolution it can be said that thinking (manas), feeling
      (buddhi) and will-attributes (atma) were all present. But after Jesus
      Christ this new achievement had to be "earthed" in three streams. It
      is said that the cosmic "Jordan-babtism-experience" brings
      new "force" to the whole solar system and three "Damascos-
      experiences" can deliver this "Christ-force" to earth.

      There were three remarkable "initiations" in those times we are now
      studying. St.John's initiation (the waking of Lazarus) was not a
      proper Damascos-experience (which happens in "waking conciousness"),
      because that became possible only after the Mystery of Golgotha. But
      anyway the Initiator was Jesus Christ himself, so the old Mysteries
      in the invisible world were renewed; in some sense we can now talk
      about rosicrusian mysteries. The thinking process and manas-aspect
      are crucial in this stream. If we think the three words of St.Paul:
      faith, hope and love, then it is love which can be linked to this
      stream (remember the beloved disciple).

      A central theme in "St.Paul's christianity" is faith and it can be
      connected also to the "buddhi-aspect". This stream is sadly
      misunderstood; theologians without the same experience St.Paul had
      have made rigid doctrines (bare bones - Ahriman) out of his words.
      The danger in this stream lies in the possibility that faith turns to
      blind faith (and superstition) as the danger in St.John's stream is
      that love turns to "selflove" and (intellectual) pride.

      The third stream is named after St.Peter, and there are some problems
      in this connection. This stream deals with will (atma-aspect),
      ethics, and everyday, practical living. If we think the three "lower
      levels", then there's special significance in the physical level, as
      in St.Paul's case "astral world" and in St.John's case mental world
      is important.

      In St.Peter's "parishes" poverty was an important thing, newcomers
      had to give their "money" to the apostols. Jesus Christ's teachings
      were important in this stream; it would be inappropriate in this
      connection to stress that "it is only the Christ Event that matters,
      the teachings of Jesus Christ are not important". The commandments
      given in the Sermon on the Mount were taken seriously, also the talk
      about poverty in the beautitudes etc. Disciples in this stream didn't
      give oaths, didn't go to military service etc. (In a special instance
      Jesus Christ had asked that the discliples should take a couple of
      swords with them. Them He could give them a conrete lesson, when St.
      Peter tried to defend Jesus with the sword: "Put away that sword,
      because.)

      When asked, St.Peter said that Jesus was Christ, Son of a living God.
      Then Jesus said that on this rock (Petrus) He will build
      his "eccleesia". We can clearly see the importance of this stream. By
      the way, it is interesting to notice that soon after the above
      mentioned incident Jesus told that he would die soon. Then St.Peter
      said that this should not happen and Jesus answered: "Be off, satan."
      It is Asura, who is the "main enemy" in this stream.

      Jesus Christ didn't initiate St.Peter and he didn't have the Damascos-
      experience later in that incarnation either. The real leader in this
      stream is St.Stephan, who had his Initiation, when he was stoned to
      death. St.Stephan's death was a major setback to the new religion.
      The "rockbottom" was in some sense missing, the meaning of the ethics
      declared from the "Mountain" became obscure. That was also the case
      conserning the attitude againts the evil and the real status and
      significance of Christ was not properly clarified. (In this case of
      evil and also what is called a "manichean stream" S. Prokoffjev have
      stated many important facts in his book about the spiritual
      significance of forgiving.)

      From St.Paul's "three words" we can link "hope" to this stream of
      St.Peter. But that hope became soon a bit materialistic, they hoped
      for the physical return of the Christ, which should occur soon. So
      they didn't work properly to earn their daily living; they lived
      using the "old property" and even St.Paul tried to help them. In the
      course of time this stream died away, and when there formed
      the "state-church", which waged war against the "heathens", not much
      was left about the real significance of this stream.

      It is said that Leo Tolstoy had the etheric vehicle of St.Peter in
      his disposal, and Tolstoy really recovered from the "dustbin of
      history" many important facts, which have close connection to this
      stream of real christianity. Probably there were same kinds of
      restrictions in life of Leo Tolstoy as there were in St.Peter's life,
      but it is a grave mistake to think that Tolstoy was just
      harbouring "Luciferic illusions" in his teachings.

      It is necessary to see the "whole picture", half-thruths (or 1/3-
      thruts) play only on the behalf of Ahriman. And I really believe (as
      St.Paul put it) that our (=truthseekers) fight is not against flesh
      and blood, but. Nowadays it is possible to start straight from the
      new Initiatory Path (Way of the Son, see the earlier post "New
      look.") and it begins from the 4th initiation in the old scheme, the
      Mars-initiation, "turning the sword to cross". This is helped by the
      karmic changes which are connected to the "second, etheric coming of
      the Christ", as Dr. Steiner puts it. E.g. Bailey, when preaching
      the "old story", undestands only that aspirants must take the
      initiations in sequence starting from the first and recommends
      some "lame harmlessness". (This same doctrine was expounded by Besant
      and Leadbeater, it is OK to kill your enemies in war, when you just
      don't get angry and don't kill animals!)

      The number of serious thruth-seekers is relatively small compared to
      the amount of incarnating egos in the whole humanity, and I
      sincerely believe that concentrating in Christ, in the Tree of Life,
      we are more useful than taking part in the physical fights in this
      (now lower) school of Good and Evil. If this attitude in
      deemed "Luciferic", so be it.

      Hey, this was supposed to be a short and simple answer, but somehow I
      got "carried away" (I hope not "by the moonlight shadow", a luciferic
      reference again!). There are no clear cut rules in these matters
      (even though I'm in the habit of stating my opinions rather
      strictly!), it's about individual undestanding and decisions.

      Warm Regards
      Jouko



      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      Unsubscribe:
      anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com


      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.