Rép. : [anthroposophy] The Cup or the Sword
- ----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 ChristianityThis has been quite an issue for me...(the issue of
> a call for universal acceptance? Or is there sometimes
> a righteous need for exclusivity?
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
Let me[us] see that Story as the
Encompassing Power of the Word,
of the Tongue as a Sword. :)
>--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.... ;)
Do we sit back and unconditionally smile upon terrorism,
In Warmth and Light,
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
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,
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.
List owner: email@example.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/