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

Re: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record

Expand Messages
  • Bill N
    This is an important point made in these lectures that is misunderstood by those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it something like this.
    Message 1 of 15 , Aug 5, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      This is an important point made in these lectures that is misunderstood by
      those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it something
      like this. Whatever we do here in the physical world affects karma, both our
      individual karma and earth karma.

      The idea is that, before we do something, the conditions are different than
      after and these after-conditions exist in objective ways that rectifying our
      individual karma cannot possibly ever change. In other words, the act would
      remain as a lasting effect on earth evolution unless there was some
      interception. These acts are not visible to all who view the Akashic Script
      because they have not embraced the Christ being. Once we take in Christ, we
      see that he has taken on these acts for us. Through the process of "Not I,
      but the Christ in me.", Christ takes these burdens off of our souls for, if
      they remained, we would not be able to evolve.

      Those who feel that Christ forgives all their sins are under the influence
      of Lucifer and, while they may be able to progress spiritually as what
      Steiner refers to as "species-humans", they become stuck materialistically
      in earth stage of evolution.

      I think most of the above is also below.

      Bill



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@...>
      To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:56 AM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record


      > Dear Listees,
      >
      > On 7/23/02 in message #4297, Margaret Cooper, writing as
      > Sieglunda, spoke of how The Christ is able to remove certain
      > "readings", I suppose they could be termed, from the Akashic
      > Record. In response to her statements, Jeff Auen, on the same date
      > in message #4299 requested a source for her information. As is
      > usual when one reads Steiner a great deal, it often becomes
      > impossible to recall exactly where what is, so I was asked to keep
      > an eye out for this very important point. Sooner or later, we
      > always seem to meet these things again at the most unexpected
      > times, and so it was that tonight - uh - last night, now - I came
      > across the passage referred to in Steiner's *Christ and the Human
      > Soul*, Lecture 3 of 4, 12-16 July 1914 given at Norrkoping,
      > Sweden. Because some of you may have difficulty acquiring this
      > work, or for some other reason, I should like to include the
      > relevent portion en toto as it was first published in my 1927
      > edition. I would be deeply appreciated to have all my typos
      > pointed out for correction. Fair warning to those who are already
      > familiar with this work...:)
      >
      > CHRIST AND THE HUMAN SOUL
      >
      > by Rudolf Steiner
      >
      > Lecture 3
      >
      > One of the concepts which must rise up within us when we speak of
      > the relations of Christ to the human soul is that of sin and its
      > debt. We know what the significance of the concepts of guilt and
      > sin have in the Christianity of St. Paul. Our present age is,
      > however, little adapted for a really deep inner understanding of
      > the wider connections between the concepts 'Death and Sin' and
      > 'Death and Immortality,' that are to be found in Pau's writings.
      > This lies in the materialism of our times. Let us recll what I
      > said in the first lecture of this course, that there could be no
      > true immortality of the human soul without a continuation of
      > consciousness into the conditions after death. An ending of
      > consciousness of man's being after death would mean that what is
      > the most important of aoll, that which makes man into man, would
      > not exist after death. An unconscious human soul surviving after
      > death would nopt mean much more than the sum of atoms acknowledged
      > by materialism, which remain even when the human body is
      > destroyed.
      > For Paul it was a matter of unshakable conviction that it is only
      > possible to speak of immortality if the individual consciousness
      > is maintained. And as he had to think of the individual
      > consciousness as subject to sin and guilt it may be taken for
      > granted that Paul would think: 'If a man's consciousness is
      > obscured after death by sin and guilt, or by their results--if,
      > after death, consciousness is disturbed by sin and guilt, this
      > signifies that sin and guilt really kill man--they kill him as
      > soul, as spirit.' The materialistic consciousness of our timeis
      > far remote from this. Many modern philosophic investigators are
      > content to speak of a continuance of the life of the human soul,
      > whereas the immortality of man may only be identified with a
      > conscious continuance of the human soul after death.
      > A difficulty of course arises here, especially for the
      > anthroposophical world conception. To be faced with this
      > difficulty we need only direct our attention to the relationship
      > of the concepts of 'Guilt and Sin' and of 'Karma.' Many people get
      > over this by saying that they believe Karma to be a debt which a
      > man contracts in any one of his incarnations; he bears this debt
      > with him, with his Karma, and discharges it later; thus, in the
      > course of incarnations, a compensation is brought about. Here
      > begins the difficulty. These people then say: 'How can this be
      > reconcilable with the Christian acceptation of the conception of
      > the forgiveness of sins through Christ?' And yet again the idea of
      > the forgiveness of sins is intimately bound up with true
      > Christianity. It is only necessary to think of this one example:
      > Christ on the Cross between two malefactors. The malefactor on the
      > left hand mocks at Christ: 'If Thou wilt be Divine, help Thyself
      > and us!' The malefactor on the right held that the other ought not
      > to speak thus, for both had merited their fate of crucifixion--the
      > just award of their deeds; whereas He was innocent, and had yet to
      > experience the same fate. The malefactor on the right added to
      > this: 'Think of me when Thou art in Thy Kingdom." And Christ
      > answered him: 'Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with
      > Me in Paradise.' It is not permissible merely to gainsay these
      > words and omit them from the Gospel, for they are very
      > significant. The difficulty arises from the question: If this
      > malefactor on the right has to wash away what he has brought about
      > in his Karma, what does it mean when Christ, as it were, pardoning
      > and forgiving him, says: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
      > Paradise'? It may appear that the malefactor on the right will
      > have to wash away his debt with his Karma, even as the one on the
      > left. Why is there a difference made by Christ between the
      > malefactor on the right and the one on the left? There is no doubt
      > at all that the conception of Karma is here met by a difficulty
      > that is not easy to solve. It is solved however when we try to
      > probe more deeply into Christianity by means of Spiritual Science.
      > And now I shall approach the subject from quit another side, the
      > nature of which is already known to you, but which can bring
      > certain remarkable circumstances to light.
      > You know how often we speak of Lucifer and Ahriman, and how
      > Lucifer and Ahriman are represented in my Mystery Plays. When one
      > begins to consider the thing in a human-anthropomorphic sense and
      > simply makes of Lucifer a kind of inner and of Ahriman a kind of
      > outer criminal, there will be difficulty in getting on; for we
      > must not forget that Lucifer, besides being the bringer of evil
      > into the world, the inner evil that arises through the passions,
      > is also the bringer of freedom; Lucifer plays an important role in
      > the universe. In the same way it must be said of Ahriman that he,
      > too, plays an important part in the universe. When we began to
      > speak more of Lucifer and Ahriman, it was our experience that many
      > of those who were associated with us became uneasy; they still had
      > a feeling left of what people have always thought of Lucifer,
      > namely, that he is a fearful criminal in the world, against whom
      > one must defend oneself. Feeling this about Lucifer they could not
      > of course give unqualified assent to a different conception
      > because they must assign to Lucifer an important role in the
      > universe, and yet again Lucifer must be regarded as an opponent of
      > progressive Gods, as a being who crosses the plan of those Gods to
      > whom honour is rightly due. Thus, when we speak of Lucifer in this
      > way, we are in effect ascribing an important role in the universe
      > to an enemy of the Gods. And we must do the same in the case of
      > Ahriman. From this point of view it it quite easy to understand
      > the human feeling that asks: 'What is the right attitude to adopt
      > towards Lucifer and Ahriman; am I to love them or hate them?' It
      > should be quite clear from the way in which one speaks of Lucifer
      > and Ahriman that they are beings who, by their whole nature do not
      > belong to the physical plane, but have their mission and task in
      > the Cosmos outside the physical plane, in the spiritual worlds. In
      > the Munich lectures of the summer of 1913, [The Secrets of the
      > Threshold. sp] I laid particular emphasis on th fact that the
      > progressive Gods have assigned to Lucifer and Ahriman roles in the
      > spiritual worlds; and that discrepancy and disharmony only appear
      > when they bring down their activities into the physical plane, and
      > arrogate to themselves rights which are not allotted to them. But
      > we must submit to one thing, to which the human soul does not
      > readily submit when these matters are under consdieration, and it
      > is this: that our judgment, our human judgment, as we pass it,
      > holds good only for the physical plane, and that this judgment,
      > right as it may be for the physical plane, cannot be simply
      > transferred to the higher worlds. We must therefore gradually
      > accustom ourselves in Anthroposophy to widen out our judgments and
      > our world of concepts and ideas. It is because
      > materialistically-minded men of the present day do not want to
      > widen their judgment, but prefer to hold to that which holds good
      > for the physical plane that they have such difficulty in
      > understandint Anthroposophy, although it is all perfectly
      > intelligible.
      > If we say: 'one power is hostile to another,' or 'hostility is
      > unseemly,' it is quite correct from the physical plane. But the
      > same thing does not hold good for the higher planes. On the higher
      > planes the judgment must be widened. Just as in the realm of
      > electricity positive and negative electricity are necessary, so
      > also is spiritual opposition necessary in order that the universe
      > may exist in its entirety; it is necessary that the spirits should
      > oppose one another. Here comes in the truth of the saying of
      > Herakleitos, that strife as well as love constitutes the universe.
      > It is only when Lucifer works upon the human soul, and when
      > through the human soul strife is brought into the physical world,
      > that strife is wrong. But this does not hold good for the higher
      > worlds; there the hostility of the spirits is an element that
      > belongs to the whole structure, to the whole evolution of the
      > universe. This implies that as soon as we come into the higher
      > worlds, we must employ other standards, other colourings for our
      > judgments. That is why there is often a feeling of shock when we
      > speak of Lucifer and Ahriman on the one side as the opponents of
      > the Gods, and on the other side as being necessary to the whole
      > course of the universal order. Hence we must, above all things,
      > hold firmly in our minds that a man comes into collision with the
      > universal order if he allows the judgment which holds good for the
      > physical plane to hold good for the higher worlds.
      > This is the root of the whole matter and it must again and again
      > be emphasised that Christ, as Christ, does not belong to the order
      > of the other entities of the physical plane. From the moment of
      > the baptism in Jordan, a Being Who had not previously existed on
      > Earth, a Being Who does not belong to the order of earth-beings,
      > entered into the corporal being of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in
      > Christ, we are concerned with a Being Who could truly say to the
      > disciples: 'I am from above, but ye are from below,' that is to
      > say: 'I am a Being of the kingdom of heaven, ye are of the kingdom
      > of earth.' Now let us consider the consequences of this. Must
      > earthly judgment that is entirely justifiable as such, and that
      > everyone on earth must maintain, be also the judgment of that
      > Cosmic Being Who, as Christ, entered the Jesus body? That Being,
      > Who entered the body of Jesus at the baptism in Jordan, applies
      > not an earthly but a heavenly judgment. He must judge differently
      > from ean.
      > And now let us consider the whole import of the words spoken on
      > Golgotha. The malefactor on the left believes that in the Christ
      > merely an earthly being is present, not a being whose realm is
      > beyond the earthly kingdom. But just before death there comes to
      > the consciousness of the malefactor on the right, 'Thy kingdom, O
      > Christ, is another; think of me when Thou art in Thy kingdom.' At
      > this moment the malefactor on the right shows that he has a dim
      > idea of the fact that Christ belongs to another kingdom, where a
      > power of judgment other than that obtaining on the earth, holds
      > sway. Then, out of the consciousness that He stands in His
      > kingdom, Christ can answer: 'Verily, because thou hast some dim
      > foreboding of my kingdom, this day (that is with death) thou shalt
      > be with Me in My kingdom.' This is a reference to the
      > super-earthly Christ power that draws up the human invididuality
      > innto a spiritual kingdom. Earthly judgment, human judgment, must
      > of course say: 'As regards his Karma, the righ-hand malefactor
      > will have to make compensation for his guilt even as the one on
      > the left,' for the heavenly judgment, however, something else
      > holds good. But that is only the beginning of the matter, for of
      > course it might now be said: 'Yes, then the judgment of heaven
      > contradicts that of the earth. How can Christ forgive where the
      > earthly judgment demands karmic retribution?'
      > It is a difficult question, but we will try to approach it more
      > closely in the course of this lecture. I lay special emphasis on
      > the fact that we are touching here on one of the most difficult
      > questions of Spiritual Science. We must make a difference which
      > the human soul does not willingly make, because it does not like
      > following the thing to its ultimate consequences; there are
      > difficulties in following it up to its ultimate consequeces. We
      > shall find it, as I have said, a difficult subject, and you will
      > perhaps find it necessary to turn the thing over in your souls
      > many times in order to get at its real essence.
      > Firstly, we must make a distinction. We must consider the one
      > element that fulfils itself in Karma in an objective retribution.
      > Here we must clearly understand that man is certainly subject to
      > his Karma; that he has tomake karmic compensation for unjust
      > deeds, and when we think more deeply about it, a man will not
      > actually wish otherwise. For suppose that a man has done another
      > person wrong; in the moment of this wrong he is less perfect than
      > before he had done it, and he can only attain the grade of
      > perfection which was his before he committed the wrong by making
      > compensation for it. He must wish to make compensation for the
      > wrong; for only in such compensation does he create for himself
      > the stage of perfection which was his before the act was
      > committed. Thus, for the sake of our own perfecting we can wish
      > nothing else than that Karma is there as objective justice. When
      > we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish
      > that a sin should be so forgiven us; that is, for example, we were
      > to put a man's eyes out, the sin would be so forgiven us that we
      > should no longer need to wipe it away in our Karma. A man who puts
      > out the eyes of another is more imperfect than one who does not,
      > and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a
      > corresponding good act, for then only is he again the man that he
      > was before he committed the act. So that when we rightly consider
      > the nature of man, there can be no thought within us that when a
      > man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and
      > that Karma will be in some way adjusted. It is fully justified in
      > Karma that we are not excused a farthing, but that the debt must
      > be paid to the uttermost.
      > But there is another element with regard to the guilt. The guilt,
      > the sin with which we are laden, is not merely our own affair, it
      > is an objective cosmic concern, it means something for the
      > universe also. This is where the distinction must be made. The
      > crimes that we have committed are compensated in our Karma, but
      > the act of putting out another's eyes is an accomplished fact; if
      > we have, let us say, put someone's eyes out in the present
      > incarnation, and then in the next incarnation do something that
      > makes compensation for this act, yet for the objective course of
      > the universe the fact still remains that so many hundred years ago
      > we put someone's eyes out. That is an objective fact in the
      > universe. So far as we are concerned we make compensation for it
      > later. the guilt that we have personally contracted is adjusted in
      > our Karma, but the objective cosmic fact remains--we cannot efface
      > that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate
      > between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the
      > consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world. It is
      > highly important that we should make this distinction. And I may
      > now perhaps intruduce an occult observation which will make this
      > matter clearer.
      > When a man surveys the course of human evolution since the
      > Mystery of Golgotha and approaches the Akashic Record without
      > being permeated with the Christ-Being, it is easy, very easy
      > indeed to be led into error, for in this he will find records
      > which very often do not coincide with the karmic evolution of the
      > individuals. For example, let us suppose that is, say the year
      > 733, some man lived and incurred heavy guilt. The person now
      > examining the Akashic Record, may at first have no connection with
      > the Christ-Being. And behold ! the man's guilt cannot be found in
      > the Akashic Record. Examination of the Karma in a later
      > incarnation of this man reveals that there is something still in
      > his Karma which he has to wipe out. That must have existed in the
      > Akashic Record at a certain point of time, but it is not there.
      > Examination of the Karma reveals that the man has to make amends;
      > the guilt of the incarnation must have been inscribed in the
      > Akashic Record, but it is not there. Here is a contradiction. This
      > is an objective fact which may occur in numerous cases. I may meet
      > with a man today, and if through grace I am permitted to know
      > something about his Karma, I may perhaps find that some
      > misfortune, or stroke of fate stands in his Karma,that it is the
      > admustment of earlier guilt. If I turn to his earlier incarnations
      > and examoine what he did then, I do not find this fact registered
      > in the Akashic Record. How does this come about?
      > The reason of this is that Christ has actually taken upon Himself
      > the objective debt. In the moment that I permeate myself with
      > Christ, I discover the deed when I examine the Akashic Record with
      > Christ, Christ has taken it into His kingdom, and He bears it
      > further, so that when I look away from Christ I cannot find it in
      > the Akashic Record. This distinction must be observed: karmic
      > justice remains; but Christ intervenes in the effects of guilt in
      > the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom, and
      > bears it further. Christ is that Being Who, because He is of
      > another kingdom, is able to blot out in the Cosmos our debts and
      > our guilt, taking them upon Himself.
      > What is it that the Christ on the Cross of Golgotha really
      > conveys to the malefactor on the left? He does not utter it, but
      > in the fact that He does not utter it lies the essence. He says to
      > the malefactor on the left: 'What thou hast done will continue to
      > work in the spiritual world also and not merely in the physical
      > world.' To the malefactor on the right He says: 'Today shalt thou
      > be with Me in Paradise.' That is to say: 'I am beside thine act;
      > through thy Karma thou wilt have later on to do for thyself all
      > that the act signifies for thee, but what the act sifnifies for
      > the universe,' if I may use a trivial expression, 'that is My
      > concern.' This is what Christ says. The distinction made here is a
      > very important one, and the matter is not only of significance for
      > the time after the Mystery of Golgotha, but also for the time
      > before the Mystery of Golgotha............
      > [Sorry to have to end here. sp]
      >
      >
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >


      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
    • utopia_planetia_2000
      There s something I ve been thinking about lately, about the concept time. If there s a notion that s dependent on time it s karma. Steiner mentioned of the
      Message 2 of 15 , Aug 6, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        There's something I've been thinking about lately, about the concept
        time. If there's a notion that's dependent on time it's karma.

        Steiner mentioned of the importance of the objective reality of
        Christ. In scientific lectures, Steiner also said that in the
        equation of time, distance and speed, only speed has an objective
        value (23 december 1919 to january 3 1920 lectures given in Dornach).

        Luciferic forces have opened our perceptions to the dense world.
        Probably called "maya" because space and time are its principal
        vectors, both subjective.

        Is it possible to give an interpretation to the Christ impulse as a
        vibration (speed) in space and time measurable by wavelengths?

        If so, then Christ is a state of being, the Kingdom of God is not in
        space and time (of course), but in the quality of a body atuned to
        the wavelength of the mind. In other words, a speed.

        Again, if the perception of space and time changes according to speed
        as I suggested in my earlier posts, then so does the effects of
        karma. Could that be an approach to understanding Christ and
        his "interception" on karma?

        Marc

        --- In anthroposophy@y..., "Bill N" <bmacro@l...> wrote:
        > This is an important point made in these lectures that is
        misunderstood by
        > those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it
        something
        > like this. Whatever we do here in the physical world affects karma,
        both our
        > individual karma and earth karma.
        >
        > The idea is that, before we do something, the conditions are
        different than
        > after and these after-conditions exist in objective ways that
        rectifying our
        > individual karma cannot possibly ever change. In other words, the
        act would
        > remain as a lasting effect on earth evolution unless there was some
        > interception. These acts are not visible to all who view the
        Akashic Script
        > because they have not embraced the Christ being. Once we take in
        Christ, we
        > see that he has taken on these acts for us. Through the process
        of "Not I,
        > but the Christ in me.", Christ takes these burdens off of our souls
        for, if
        > they remained, we would not be able to evolve.
        >
        > Those who feel that Christ forgives all their sins are under the
        influence
        > of Lucifer and, while they may be able to progress spiritually as
        what
        > Steiner refers to as "species-humans", they become stuck
        materialistically
        > in earth stage of evolution.
        >
        > I think most of the above is also below.
        >
        > Bill
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@A...>
        > To: <anthroposophy@y...>
        > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:56 AM
        > Subject: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record
        >
        >
        > > Dear Listees,
        > >
        > > On 7/23/02 in message #4297, Margaret Cooper, writing as
        > > Sieglunda, spoke of how The Christ is able to remove certain
        > > "readings", I suppose they could be termed, from the Akashic
        > > Record. In response to her statements, Jeff Auen, on the same date
        > > in message #4299 requested a source for her information. As is
        > > usual when one reads Steiner a great deal, it often becomes
        > > impossible to recall exactly where what is, so I was asked to keep
        > > an eye out for this very important point. Sooner or later, we
        > > always seem to meet these things again at the most unexpected
        > > times, and so it was that tonight - uh - last night, now - I came
        > > across the passage referred to in Steiner's *Christ and the Human
        > > Soul*, Lecture 3 of 4, 12-16 July 1914 given at Norrkoping,
        > > Sweden. Because some of you may have difficulty acquiring this
        > > work, or for some other reason, I should like to include the
        > > relevent portion en toto as it was first published in my 1927
        > > edition. I would be deeply appreciated to have all my typos
        > > pointed out for correction. Fair warning to those who are already
        > > familiar with this work...:)
        > >
        > > CHRIST AND THE HUMAN SOUL
        > >
        > > by Rudolf Steiner
        > >
        > > Lecture 3
        > >
        > > One of the concepts which must rise up within us when we speak of
        > > the relations of Christ to the human soul is that of sin and its
        > > debt. We know what the significance of the concepts of guilt and
        > > sin have in the Christianity of St. Paul. Our present age is,
        > > however, little adapted for a really deep inner understanding of
        > > the wider connections between the concepts 'Death and Sin' and
        > > 'Death and Immortality,' that are to be found in Pau's writings.
        > > This lies in the materialism of our times. Let us recll what I
        > > said in the first lecture of this course, that there could be no
        > > true immortality of the human soul without a continuation of
        > > consciousness into the conditions after death. An ending of
        > > consciousness of man's being after death would mean that what is
        > > the most important of aoll, that which makes man into man, would
        > > not exist after death. An unconscious human soul surviving after
        > > death would nopt mean much more than the sum of atoms acknowledged
        > > by materialism, which remain even when the human body is
        > > destroyed.
        > > For Paul it was a matter of unshakable conviction that it is only
        > > possible to speak of immortality if the individual consciousness
        > > is maintained. And as he had to think of the individual
        > > consciousness as subject to sin and guilt it may be taken for
        > > granted that Paul would think: 'If a man's consciousness is
        > > obscured after death by sin and guilt, or by their results--if,
        > > after death, consciousness is disturbed by sin and guilt, this
        > > signifies that sin and guilt really kill man--they kill him as
        > > soul, as spirit.' The materialistic consciousness of our timeis
        > > far remote from this. Many modern philosophic investigators are
        > > content to speak of a continuance of the life of the human soul,
        > > whereas the immortality of man may only be identified with a
        > > conscious continuance of the human soul after death.
        > > A difficulty of course arises here, especially for the
        > > anthroposophical world conception. To be faced with this
        > > difficulty we need only direct our attention to the relationship
        > > of the concepts of 'Guilt and Sin' and of 'Karma.' Many people get
        > > over this by saying that they believe Karma to be a debt which a
        > > man contracts in any one of his incarnations; he bears this debt
        > > with him, with his Karma, and discharges it later; thus, in the
        > > course of incarnations, a compensation is brought about. Here
        > > begins the difficulty. These people then say: 'How can this be
        > > reconcilable with the Christian acceptation of the conception of
        > > the forgiveness of sins through Christ?' And yet again the idea of
        > > the forgiveness of sins is intimately bound up with true
        > > Christianity. It is only necessary to think of this one example:
        > > Christ on the Cross between two malefactors. The malefactor on the
        > > left hand mocks at Christ: 'If Thou wilt be Divine, help Thyself
        > > and us!' The malefactor on the right held that the other ought not
        > > to speak thus, for both had merited their fate of crucifixion--the
        > > just award of their deeds; whereas He was innocent, and had yet to
        > > experience the same fate. The malefactor on the right added to
        > > this: 'Think of me when Thou art in Thy Kingdom." And Christ
        > > answered him: 'Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with
        > > Me in Paradise.' It is not permissible merely to gainsay these
        > > words and omit them from the Gospel, for they are very
        > > significant. The difficulty arises from the question: If this
        > > malefactor on the right has to wash away what he has brought about
        > > in his Karma, what does it mean when Christ, as it were, pardoning
        > > and forgiving him, says: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
        > > Paradise'? It may appear that the malefactor on the right will
        > > have to wash away his debt with his Karma, even as the one on the
        > > left. Why is there a difference made by Christ between the
        > > malefactor on the right and the one on the left? There is no doubt
        > > at all that the conception of Karma is here met by a difficulty
        > > that is not easy to solve. It is solved however when we try to
        > > probe more deeply into Christianity by means of Spiritual Science.
        > > And now I shall approach the subject from quit another side, the
        > > nature of which is already known to you, but which can bring
        > > certain remarkable circumstances to light.
        > > You know how often we speak of Lucifer and Ahriman, and how
        > > Lucifer and Ahriman are represented in my Mystery Plays. When one
        > > begins to consider the thing in a human-anthropomorphic sense and
        > > simply makes of Lucifer a kind of inner and of Ahriman a kind of
        > > outer criminal, there will be difficulty in getting on; for we
        > > must not forget that Lucifer, besides being the bringer of evil
        > > into the world, the inner evil that arises through the passions,
        > > is also the bringer of freedom; Lucifer plays an important role in
        > > the universe. In the same way it must be said of Ahriman that he,
        > > too, plays an important part in the universe. When we began to
        > > speak more of Lucifer and Ahriman, it was our experience that many
        > > of those who were associated with us became uneasy; they still had
        > > a feeling left of what people have always thought of Lucifer,
        > > namely, that he is a fearful criminal in the world, against whom
        > > one must defend oneself. Feeling this about Lucifer they could not
        > > of course give unqualified assent to a different conception
        > > because they must assign to Lucifer an important role in the
        > > universe, and yet again Lucifer must be regarded as an opponent of
        > > progressive Gods, as a being who crosses the plan of those Gods to
        > > whom honour is rightly due. Thus, when we speak of Lucifer in this
        > > way, we are in effect ascribing an important role in the universe
        > > to an enemy of the Gods. And we must do the same in the case of
        > > Ahriman. From this point of view it it quite easy to understand
        > > the human feeling that asks: 'What is the right attitude to adopt
        > > towards Lucifer and Ahriman; am I to love them or hate them?' It
        > > should be quite clear from the way in which one speaks of Lucifer
        > > and Ahriman that they are beings who, by their whole nature do not
        > > belong to the physical plane, but have their mission and task in
        > > the Cosmos outside the physical plane, in the spiritual worlds. In
        > > the Munich lectures of the summer of 1913, [The Secrets of the
        > > Threshold. sp] I laid particular emphasis on th fact that the
        > > progressive Gods have assigned to Lucifer and Ahriman roles in the
        > > spiritual worlds; and that discrepancy and disharmony only appear
        > > when they bring down their activities into the physical plane, and
        > > arrogate to themselves rights which are not allotted to them. But
        > > we must submit to one thing, to which the human soul does not
        > > readily submit when these matters are under consdieration, and it
        > > is this: that our judgment, our human judgment, as we pass it,
        > > holds good only for the physical plane, and that this judgment,
        > > right as it may be for the physical plane, cannot be simply
        > > transferred to the higher worlds. We must therefore gradually
        > > accustom ourselves in Anthroposophy to widen out our judgments and
        > > our world of concepts and ideas. It is because
        > > materialistically-minded men of the present day do not want to
        > > widen their judgment, but prefer to hold to that which holds good
        > > for the physical plane that they have such difficulty in
        > > understandint Anthroposophy, although it is all perfectly
        > > intelligible.
        > > If we say: 'one power is hostile to another,' or 'hostility is
        > > unseemly,' it is quite correct from the physical plane. But the
        > > same thing does not hold good for the higher planes. On the higher
        > > planes the judgment must be widened. Just as in the realm of
        > > electricity positive and negative electricity are necessary, so
        > > also is spiritual opposition necessary in order that the universe
        > > may exist in its entirety; it is necessary that the spirits should
        > > oppose one another. Here comes in the truth of the saying of
        > > Herakleitos, that strife as well as love constitutes the universe.
        > > It is only when Lucifer works upon the human soul, and when
        > > through the human soul strife is brought into the physical world,
        > > that strife is wrong. But this does not hold good for the higher
        > > worlds; there the hostility of the spirits is an element that
        > > belongs to the whole structure, to the whole evolution of the
        > > universe. This implies that as soon as we come into the higher
        > > worlds, we must employ other standards, other colourings for our
        > > judgments. That is why there is often a feeling of shock when we
        > > speak of Lucifer and Ahriman on the one side as the opponents of
        > > the Gods, and on the other side as being necessary to the whole
        > > course of the universal order. Hence we must, above all things,
        > > hold firmly in our minds that a man comes into collision with the
        > > universal order if he allows the judgment which holds good for the
        > > physical plane to hold good for the higher worlds.
        > > This is the root of the whole matter and it must again and again
        > > be emphasised that Christ, as Christ, does not belong to the order
        > > of the other entities of the physical plane. From the moment of
        > > the baptism in Jordan, a Being Who had not previously existed on
        > > Earth, a Being Who does not belong to the order of earth-beings,
        > > entered into the corporal being of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in
        > > Christ, we are concerned with a Being Who could truly say to the
        > > disciples: 'I am from above, but ye are from below,' that is to
        > > say: 'I am a Being of the kingdom of heaven, ye are of the kingdom
        > > of earth.' Now let us consider the consequences of this. Must
        > > earthly judgment that is entirely justifiable as such, and that
        > > everyone on earth must maintain, be also the judgment of that
        > > Cosmic Being Who, as Christ, entered the Jesus body? That Being,
        > > Who entered the body of Jesus at the baptism in Jordan, applies
        > > not an earthly but a heavenly judgment. He must judge differently
        > > from ean.
        > > And now let us consider the whole import of the words spoken on
        > > Golgotha. The malefactor on the left believes that in the Christ
        > > merely an earthly being is present, not a being whose realm is
        > > beyond the earthly kingdom. But just before death there comes to
        > > the consciousness of the malefactor on the right, 'Thy kingdom, O
        > > Christ, is another; think of me when Thou art in Thy kingdom.' At
        > > this moment the malefactor on the right shows that he has a dim
        > > idea of the fact that Christ belongs to another kingdom, where a
        > > power of judgment other than that obtaining on the earth, holds
        > > sway. Then, out of the consciousness that He stands in His
        > > kingdom, Christ can answer: 'Verily, because thou hast some dim
        > > foreboding of my kingdom, this day (that is with death) thou shalt
        > > be with Me in My kingdom.' This is a reference to the
        > > super-earthly Christ power that draws up the human invididuality
        > > innto a spiritual kingdom. Earthly judgment, human judgment, must
        > > of course say: 'As regards his Karma, the righ-hand malefactor
        > > will have to make compensation for his guilt even as the one on
        > > the left,' for the heavenly judgment, however, something else
        > > holds good. But that is only the beginning of the matter, for of
        > > course it might now be said: 'Yes, then the judgment of heaven
        > > contradicts that of the earth. How can Christ forgive where the
        > > earthly judgment demands karmic retribution?'
        > > It is a difficult question, but we will try to approach it more
        > > closely in the course of this lecture. I lay special emphasis on
        > > the fact that we are touching here on one of the most difficult
        > > questions of Spiritual Science. We must make a difference which
        > > the human soul does not willingly make, because it does not like
        > > following the thing to its ultimate consequences; there are
        > > difficulties in following it up to its ultimate consequeces. We
        > > shall find it, as I have said, a difficult subject, and you will
        > > perhaps find it necessary to turn the thing over in your souls
        > > many times in order to get at its real essence.
        > > Firstly, we must make a distinction. We must consider the one
        > > element that fulfils itself in Karma in an objective retribution.
        > > Here we must clearly understand that man is certainly subject to
        > > his Karma; that he has tomake karmic compensation for unjust
        > > deeds, and when we think more deeply about it, a man will not
        > > actually wish otherwise. For suppose that a man has done another
        > > person wrong; in the moment of this wrong he is less perfect than
        > > before he had done it, and he can only attain the grade of
        > > perfection which was his before he committed the wrong by making
        > > compensation for it. He must wish to make compensation for the
        > > wrong; for only in such compensation does he create for himself
        > > the stage of perfection which was his before the act was
        > > committed. Thus, for the sake of our own perfecting we can wish
        > > nothing else than that Karma is there as objective justice. When
        > > we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish
        > > that a sin should be so forgiven us; that is, for example, we were
        > > to put a man's eyes out, the sin would be so forgiven us that we
        > > should no longer need to wipe it away in our Karma. A man who puts
        > > out the eyes of another is more imperfect than one who does not,
        > > and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a
        > > corresponding good act, for then only is he again the man that he
        > > was before he committed the act. So that when we rightly consider
        > > the nature of man, there can be no thought within us that when a
        > > man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and
        > > that Karma will be in some way adjusted. It is fully justified in
        > > Karma that we are not excused a farthing, but that the debt must
        > > be paid to the uttermost.
        > > But there is another element with regard to the guilt. The guilt,
        > > the sin with which we are laden, is not merely our own affair, it
        > > is an objective cosmic concern, it means something for the
        > > universe also. This is where the distinction must be made. The
        > > crimes that we have committed are compensated in our Karma, but
        > > the act of putting out another's eyes is an accomplished fact; if
        > > we have, let us say, put someone's eyes out in the present
        > > incarnation, and then in the next incarnation do something that
        > > makes compensation for this act, yet for the objective course of
        > > the universe the fact still remains that so many hundred years ago
        > > we put someone's eyes out. That is an objective fact in the
        > > universe. So far as we are concerned we make compensation for it
        > > later. the guilt that we have personally contracted is adjusted in
        > > our Karma, but the objective cosmic fact remains--we cannot efface
        > > that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate
        > > between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the
        > > consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world. It is
        > > highly important that we should make this distinction. And I may
        > > now perhaps intruduce an occult observation which will make this
        > > matter clearer.
        > > When a man surveys the course of human evolution since the
        > > Mystery of Golgotha and approaches the Akashic Record without
        > > being permeated with the Christ-Being, it is easy, very easy
        > > indeed to be led into error, for in this he will find records
        > > which very often do not coincide with the karmic evolution of the
        > > individuals. For example, let us suppose that is, say the year
        > > 733, some man lived and incurred heavy guilt. The person now
        > > examining the Akashic Record, may at first have no connection with
        > > the Christ-Being. And behold ! the man's guilt cannot be found in
        > > the Akashic Record. Examination of the Karma in a later
        > > incarnation of this man reveals that there is something still in
        > > his Karma which he has to wipe out. That must have existed in the
        > > Akashic Record at a certain point of time, but it is not there.
        > > Examination of the Karma reveals that the man has to make amends;
        > > the guilt of the incarnation must have been inscribed in the
        > > Akashic Record, but it is not there. Here is a contradiction. This
        > > is an objective fact which may occur in numerous cases. I may meet
        > > with a man today, and if through grace I am permitted to know
        > > something about his Karma, I may perhaps find that some
        > > misfortune, or stroke of fate stands in his Karma,that it is the
        > > admustment of earlier guilt. If I turn to his earlier incarnations
        > > and examoine what he did then, I do not find this fact registered
        > > in the Akashic Record. How does this come about?
        > > The reason of this is that Christ has actually taken upon Himself
        > > the objective debt. In the moment that I permeate myself with
        > > Christ, I discover the deed when I examine the Akashic Record with
        > > Christ, Christ has taken it into His kingdom, and He bears it
        > > further, so that when I look away from Christ I cannot find it in
        > > the Akashic Record. This distinction must be observed: karmic
        > > justice remains; but Christ intervenes in the effects of guilt in
        > > the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom, and
        > > bears it further. Christ is that Being Who, because He is of
        > > another kingdom, is able to blot out in the Cosmos our debts and
        > > our guilt, taking them upon Himself.
        > > What is it that the Christ on the Cross of Golgotha really
        > > conveys to the malefactor on the left? He does not utter it, but
        > > in the fact that He does not utter it lies the essence. He says to
        > > the malefactor on the left: 'What thou hast done will continue to
        > > work in the spiritual world also and not merely in the physical
        > > world.' To the malefactor on the right He says: 'Today shalt thou
        > > be with Me in Paradise.' That is to say: 'I am beside thine act;
        > > through thy Karma thou wilt have later on to do for thyself all
        > > that the act signifies for thee, but what the act sifnifies for
        > > the universe,' if I may use a trivial expression, 'that is My
        > > concern.' This is what Christ says. The distinction made here is a
        > > very important one, and the matter is not only of significance for
        > > the time after the Mystery of Golgotha, but also for the time
        > > before the Mystery of Golgotha............
        > > [Sorry to have to end here. sp]
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
        > > Unsubscribe:
        > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@y...
        > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@y...
        > >
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > ---
        > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
        > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
        > Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
      • Bradford Riley
        From: utopia_planetia_2000 ... Bradford comments; We are passing through a kind of astralogical recollection of Pluto and
        Message 3 of 15 , Aug 6, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          From: "utopia_planetia_2000" <utopia_planetia@...>
          >Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Christ and the Akashic Record
          >Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 17:17:45 -0000
          >
          >Is it possible to give an interpretation to the Christ impulse as a
          >vibration (speed) in space and time measurable by wavelengths?
          >
          >If so, then Christ is a state of being, the Kingdom of God is not in
          >space and time (of course), but in the quality of a body atuned to
          >the wavelength of the mind. In other words, a speed.
          >
          >Again, if the perception of space and time changes according to speed
          >as I suggested in my earlier posts, then so does the effects of
          >karma. Could that be an approach to understanding Christ and
          >his "interception" on karma?
          >
          Bradford comments;

          We are passing through a kind of astralogical recollection of Pluto and
          Saturn..Plutonium and passing over the memory again of Hiroshima. I haven't
          finished the data here yet, however the insights that Einstein placed before
          us and that Oppenheimer acted upon have come to light, just out of this
          current star configuration we are in. Starman may give us more, but I can
          recheck it.

          I was reading some research in "Davids Question" What is Man by Edward
          Rouagh something.. what happened was that he presented an equation where
          there is a missing factor in heat. But my brain has recently put together an
          intution connected to it, which as you see, I haven't fully worked it out,
          nor can I, alone. But it is this.

          Space and Matter as the Thrones bequeathed it to us now comes down to
          penetration below the threshold of Goethean sight.. microscopic descent into
          the Atomic structure well below the level of the eye. Everything, the birds
          that sing, the dawgs that bark, our Mother's voice are all made up of the
          destructive force of cells and atoms we need special instruments to see. The
          spacing between the atoms and cells depends on the etheric blueprint of the
          thing, the thing that it is.. but it appears as matter, rock, water sky,
          before our eyes.

          What we have with the perception of the Etheric Christ and the future forces
          we are accumulating that bring Mankind to the future Jupiter Phase is a
          transformation of matter... However matter, as Steiner has indicated is a
          combination of Love and Light. In Nuclear Fisson and today is the day after
          the Hiroshima blast of August 5, and some fifty odd years ago..and Pluto and
          Plutonium doing something.. WE see that Oppenheimer and Einstein supplied an
          equation that allowed us to divide Light from Love in Matter.

          Raw light, severed from the human, higher I AM ability to penetrate matter..
          to infuse it with flight of bird, dancing waters, solid oak workbenches and
          tables and of course the living, acting Spiritual Being. That which we do to
          the least of these we do to Him.. Matter is transubstantiation substance
          that is the basis of the Resurrection. Matter is the shit of the gods or at
          least the least of which, out of which, for all future times, we borrow this
          reserved living matter to cloth our developments with. Love is what Christ
          feeds off of. Christ feeds off of the high Thrones sacrifice that allowed us
          to have matter linked to Love and Light. Christ's sacrifice to take on the
          Earth region and all matter in it and lift it to Jupiter has to do with the
          higher education of the gods as well. We are not Elohim. We might not know,
          as we have proved, how to lift the Love, savor the love that is linked in
          all matter even if we imagine it as all Maya.. it ain't.. It is a real
          theatre of action for the Risen Christ and us.

          As we sever the raw forces of disintegrating, poisoned Light into
          radioactivity we have ripped Love from matter. But can we weigh Love? Has
          the Love gone out of the equation or is their an equation that has been put
          forth which contains the destructive lie of why nuclear waste cannot be
          digested by our I AM's.. Yet air, light, water, beef can be transmuted
          through a process.. However as we penetrated below the decks of matter, into
          sub-realms.. As in the Michael Letters by Steiner indicate, these sub-realms
          reveal that the matter we poison is equal to a certain equation towards how
          much lost or devoured Love has been held for us or at least supplies the
          forces of the Etheric Christ. Where did the emancipated and hoarded Love go?

          What are the lyrics to the Beatle song.. The Love you take is equal to the
          Love you make.. I think we are onto something here. The Etheric forces
          involved with creating the Jupiter evolution and the Not one Jot or Tittle
          and that which you do to the least of these you do to me brings us to a new
          equation that has not been understood by Einstein, Truman, Oppenheimer and
          nuclear physics. Steiner does not say that we will not have to disintegrate
          and matter during the future course of evolution but he does say,
          electricity, magnetism and other immense forces, will speedily push us
          towards Jupter evolution. So why? Isn't there an equation to do with the
          loss of the Love factor in matter? We understand the great Yucca Mountain
          where America's nuclear waste will be stored as a kind of Mount Doom from
          "Lord of the Rings." Here we glimpse the Beings whose food is not like our
          food.

          But you see the Elohim and the higher still Thrones eat much different food
          than we and nothing will be lost.. but you see Einstein and the rest of the
          idiots forgot that matter is made up of sweet words of love, a child's
          laugh, the reflection of the moon in the waters, a big fish caught from a
          river to eat... a lofty tree that creates a house in which a child becomes a
          Churchhill. We must find the part of the equation of E=MC2 that loses
          something in the blast.. What happens when the Love is removed, it is
          poisoned. So where did the Love go? What is the Etheric Christ doing with
          the Thrones Love that has been severed by Man from Matter? This is a big
          fish.. a big fish!


          _________________________________________________________________
          MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
          http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
        • Bill N
          Everything is light. Evolution is moving, living. The year is in seasons, the cycle of plants, animals, and human development, both physical and spiritual,
          Message 4 of 15 , Aug 6, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Everything is light. Evolution is moving, living. The year is in seasons,
            the cycle of plants, animals, and human development, both physical and
            spiritual, relates to periods of time. How long do we remain in Panorama,
            Kamaloca, Devachan? What is the length of Kamaloca based upon?

            Time is more than linear expression. It encompasses space, rhythm, movement,
            infinity, and all the rest, known and unknown. Steiner talks about
            everything relative to the form of time. We don't carry time with us, we
            carry spirit and consciousness. Time is a mystery.

            Bill


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "utopia_planetia_2000" <utopia_planetia@...>
            To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2002 10:17 AM
            Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Christ and the Akashic Record


            > There's something I've been thinking about lately, about the concept
            > time. If there's a notion that's dependent on time it's karma.
            >
            > Steiner mentioned of the importance of the objective reality of
            > Christ. In scientific lectures, Steiner also said that in the
            > equation of time, distance and speed, only speed has an objective
            > value (23 december 1919 to january 3 1920 lectures given in Dornach).
            >
            > Luciferic forces have opened our perceptions to the dense world.
            > Probably called "maya" because space and time are its principal
            > vectors, both subjective.
            >
            > Is it possible to give an interpretation to the Christ impulse as a
            > vibration (speed) in space and time measurable by wavelengths?
            >
            > If so, then Christ is a state of being, the Kingdom of God is not in
            > space and time (of course), but in the quality of a body atuned to
            > the wavelength of the mind. In other words, a speed.
            >
            > Again, if the perception of space and time changes according to speed
            > as I suggested in my earlier posts, then so does the effects of
            > karma. Could that be an approach to understanding Christ and
            > his "interception" on karma?
            >
            > Marc
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy@y..., "Bill N" <bmacro@l...> wrote:
            > > This is an important point made in these lectures that is
            > misunderstood by
            > > those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it
            > something
            > > like this. Whatever we do here in the physical world affects karma,
            > both our
            > > individual karma and earth karma.
            > >
            > > The idea is that, before we do something, the conditions are
            > different than
            > > after and these after-conditions exist in objective ways that
            > rectifying our
            > > individual karma cannot possibly ever change. In other words, the
            > act would
            > > remain as a lasting effect on earth evolution unless there was some
            > > interception. These acts are not visible to all who view the
            > Akashic Script
            > > because they have not embraced the Christ being. Once we take in
            > Christ, we
            > > see that he has taken on these acts for us. Through the process
            > of "Not I,
            > > but the Christ in me.", Christ takes these burdens off of our souls
            > for, if
            > > they remained, we would not be able to evolve.
            > >
            > > Those who feel that Christ forgives all their sins are under the
            > influence
            > > of Lucifer and, while they may be able to progress spiritually as
            > what
            > > Steiner refers to as "species-humans", they become stuck
            > materialistically
            > > in earth stage of evolution.
            > >
            > > I think most of the above is also below.
            > >
            > > Bill
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@A...>
            > > To: <anthroposophy@y...>
            > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:56 AM
            > > Subject: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record
            > >
            > >
            > > > Dear Listees,
            > > >
            > > > On 7/23/02 in message #4297, Margaret Cooper, writing as
            > > > Sieglunda, spoke of how The Christ is able to remove certain
            > > > "readings", I suppose they could be termed, from the Akashic
            > > > Record. In response to her statements, Jeff Auen, on the same date
            > > > in message #4299 requested a source for her information. As is
            > > > usual when one reads Steiner a great deal, it often becomes
            > > > impossible to recall exactly where what is, so I was asked to keep
            > > > an eye out for this very important point. Sooner or later, we
            > > > always seem to meet these things again at the most unexpected
            > > > times, and so it was that tonight - uh - last night, now - I came
            > > > across the passage referred to in Steiner's *Christ and the Human
            > > > Soul*, Lecture 3 of 4, 12-16 July 1914 given at Norrkoping,
            > > > Sweden. Because some of you may have difficulty acquiring this
            > > > work, or for some other reason, I should like to include the
            > > > relevent portion en toto as it was first published in my 1927
            > > > edition. I would be deeply appreciated to have all my typos
            > > > pointed out for correction. Fair warning to those who are already
            > > > familiar with this work...:)
            > > >
            > > > CHRIST AND THE HUMAN SOUL
            > > >
            > > > by Rudolf Steiner
            > > >
            > > > Lecture 3
            > > >
            > > > One of the concepts which must rise up within us when we speak of
            > > > the relations of Christ to the human soul is that of sin and its
            > > > debt. We know what the significance of the concepts of guilt and
            > > > sin have in the Christianity of St. Paul. Our present age is,
            > > > however, little adapted for a really deep inner understanding of
            > > > the wider connections between the concepts 'Death and Sin' and
            > > > 'Death and Immortality,' that are to be found in Pau's writings.
            > > > This lies in the materialism of our times. Let us recll what I
            > > > said in the first lecture of this course, that there could be no
            > > > true immortality of the human soul without a continuation of
            > > > consciousness into the conditions after death. An ending of
            > > > consciousness of man's being after death would mean that what is
            > > > the most important of aoll, that which makes man into man, would
            > > > not exist after death. An unconscious human soul surviving after
            > > > death would nopt mean much more than the sum of atoms acknowledged
            > > > by materialism, which remain even when the human body is
            > > > destroyed.
            > > > For Paul it was a matter of unshakable conviction that it is only
            > > > possible to speak of immortality if the individual consciousness
            > > > is maintained. And as he had to think of the individual
            > > > consciousness as subject to sin and guilt it may be taken for
            > > > granted that Paul would think: 'If a man's consciousness is
            > > > obscured after death by sin and guilt, or by their results--if,
            > > > after death, consciousness is disturbed by sin and guilt, this
            > > > signifies that sin and guilt really kill man--they kill him as
            > > > soul, as spirit.' The materialistic consciousness of our timeis
            > > > far remote from this. Many modern philosophic investigators are
            > > > content to speak of a continuance of the life of the human soul,
            > > > whereas the immortality of man may only be identified with a
            > > > conscious continuance of the human soul after death.
            > > > A difficulty of course arises here, especially for the
            > > > anthroposophical world conception. To be faced with this
            > > > difficulty we need only direct our attention to the relationship
            > > > of the concepts of 'Guilt and Sin' and of 'Karma.' Many people get
            > > > over this by saying that they believe Karma to be a debt which a
            > > > man contracts in any one of his incarnations; he bears this debt
            > > > with him, with his Karma, and discharges it later; thus, in the
            > > > course of incarnations, a compensation is brought about. Here
            > > > begins the difficulty. These people then say: 'How can this be
            > > > reconcilable with the Christian acceptation of the conception of
            > > > the forgiveness of sins through Christ?' And yet again the idea of
            > > > the forgiveness of sins is intimately bound up with true
            > > > Christianity. It is only necessary to think of this one example:
            > > > Christ on the Cross between two malefactors. The malefactor on the
            > > > left hand mocks at Christ: 'If Thou wilt be Divine, help Thyself
            > > > and us!' The malefactor on the right held that the other ought not
            > > > to speak thus, for both had merited their fate of crucifixion--the
            > > > just award of their deeds; whereas He was innocent, and had yet to
            > > > experience the same fate. The malefactor on the right added to
            > > > this: 'Think of me when Thou art in Thy Kingdom." And Christ
            > > > answered him: 'Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with
            > > > Me in Paradise.' It is not permissible merely to gainsay these
            > > > words and omit them from the Gospel, for they are very
            > > > significant. The difficulty arises from the question: If this
            > > > malefactor on the right has to wash away what he has brought about
            > > > in his Karma, what does it mean when Christ, as it were, pardoning
            > > > and forgiving him, says: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
            > > > Paradise'? It may appear that the malefactor on the right will
            > > > have to wash away his debt with his Karma, even as the one on the
            > > > left. Why is there a difference made by Christ between the
            > > > malefactor on the right and the one on the left? There is no doubt
            > > > at all that the conception of Karma is here met by a difficulty
            > > > that is not easy to solve. It is solved however when we try to
            > > > probe more deeply into Christianity by means of Spiritual Science.
            > > > And now I shall approach the subject from quit another side, the
            > > > nature of which is already known to you, but which can bring
            > > > certain remarkable circumstances to light.
            > > > You know how often we speak of Lucifer and Ahriman, and how
            > > > Lucifer and Ahriman are represented in my Mystery Plays. When one
            > > > begins to consider the thing in a human-anthropomorphic sense and
            > > > simply makes of Lucifer a kind of inner and of Ahriman a kind of
            > > > outer criminal, there will be difficulty in getting on; for we
            > > > must not forget that Lucifer, besides being the bringer of evil
            > > > into the world, the inner evil that arises through the passions,
            > > > is also the bringer of freedom; Lucifer plays an important role in
            > > > the universe. In the same way it must be said of Ahriman that he,
            > > > too, plays an important part in the universe. When we began to
            > > > speak more of Lucifer and Ahriman, it was our experience that many
            > > > of those who were associated with us became uneasy; they still had
            > > > a feeling left of what people have always thought of Lucifer,
            > > > namely, that he is a fearful criminal in the world, against whom
            > > > one must defend oneself. Feeling this about Lucifer they could not
            > > > of course give unqualified assent to a different conception
            > > > because they must assign to Lucifer an important role in the
            > > > universe, and yet again Lucifer must be regarded as an opponent of
            > > > progressive Gods, as a being who crosses the plan of those Gods to
            > > > whom honour is rightly due. Thus, when we speak of Lucifer in this
            > > > way, we are in effect ascribing an important role in the universe
            > > > to an enemy of the Gods. And we must do the same in the case of
            > > > Ahriman. From this point of view it it quite easy to understand
            > > > the human feeling that asks: 'What is the right attitude to adopt
            > > > towards Lucifer and Ahriman; am I to love them or hate them?' It
            > > > should be quite clear from the way in which one speaks of Lucifer
            > > > and Ahriman that they are beings who, by their whole nature do not
            > > > belong to the physical plane, but have their mission and task in
            > > > the Cosmos outside the physical plane, in the spiritual worlds. In
            > > > the Munich lectures of the summer of 1913, [The Secrets of the
            > > > Threshold. sp] I laid particular emphasis on th fact that the
            > > > progressive Gods have assigned to Lucifer and Ahriman roles in the
            > > > spiritual worlds; and that discrepancy and disharmony only appear
            > > > when they bring down their activities into the physical plane, and
            > > > arrogate to themselves rights which are not allotted to them. But
            > > > we must submit to one thing, to which the human soul does not
            > > > readily submit when these matters are under consdieration, and it
            > > > is this: that our judgment, our human judgment, as we pass it,
            > > > holds good only for the physical plane, and that this judgment,
            > > > right as it may be for the physical plane, cannot be simply
            > > > transferred to the higher worlds. We must therefore gradually
            > > > accustom ourselves in Anthroposophy to widen out our judgments and
            > > > our world of concepts and ideas. It is because
            > > > materialistically-minded men of the present day do not want to
            > > > widen their judgment, but prefer to hold to that which holds good
            > > > for the physical plane that they have such difficulty in
            > > > understandint Anthroposophy, although it is all perfectly
            > > > intelligible.
            > > > If we say: 'one power is hostile to another,' or 'hostility is
            > > > unseemly,' it is quite correct from the physical plane. But the
            > > > same thing does not hold good for the higher planes. On the higher
            > > > planes the judgment must be widened. Just as in the realm of
            > > > electricity positive and negative electricity are necessary, so
            > > > also is spiritual opposition necessary in order that the universe
            > > > may exist in its entirety; it is necessary that the spirits should
            > > > oppose one another. Here comes in the truth of the saying of
            > > > Herakleitos, that strife as well as love constitutes the universe.
            > > > It is only when Lucifer works upon the human soul, and when
            > > > through the human soul strife is brought into the physical world,
            > > > that strife is wrong. But this does not hold good for the higher
            > > > worlds; there the hostility of the spirits is an element that
            > > > belongs to the whole structure, to the whole evolution of the
            > > > universe. This implies that as soon as we come into the higher
            > > > worlds, we must employ other standards, other colourings for our
            > > > judgments. That is why there is often a feeling of shock when we
            > > > speak of Lucifer and Ahriman on the one side as the opponents of
            > > > the Gods, and on the other side as being necessary to the whole
            > > > course of the universal order. Hence we must, above all things,
            > > > hold firmly in our minds that a man comes into collision with the
            > > > universal order if he allows the judgment which holds good for the
            > > > physical plane to hold good for the higher worlds.
            > > > This is the root of the whole matter and it must again and again
            > > > be emphasised that Christ, as Christ, does not belong to the order
            > > > of the other entities of the physical plane. From the moment of
            > > > the baptism in Jordan, a Being Who had not previously existed on
            > > > Earth, a Being Who does not belong to the order of earth-beings,
            > > > entered into the corporal being of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in
            > > > Christ, we are concerned with a Being Who could truly say to the
            > > > disciples: 'I am from above, but ye are from below,' that is to
            > > > say: 'I am a Being of the kingdom of heaven, ye are of the kingdom
            > > > of earth.' Now let us consider the consequences of this. Must
            > > > earthly judgment that is entirely justifiable as such, and that
            > > > everyone on earth must maintain, be also the judgment of that
            > > > Cosmic Being Who, as Christ, entered the Jesus body? That Being,
            > > > Who entered the body of Jesus at the baptism in Jordan, applies
            > > > not an earthly but a heavenly judgment. He must judge differently
            > > > from ean.
            > > > And now let us consider the whole import of the words spoken on
            > > > Golgotha. The malefactor on the left believes that in the Christ
            > > > merely an earthly being is present, not a being whose realm is
            > > > beyond the earthly kingdom. But just before death there comes to
            > > > the consciousness of the malefactor on the right, 'Thy kingdom, O
            > > > Christ, is another; think of me when Thou art in Thy kingdom.' At
            > > > this moment the malefactor on the right shows that he has a dim
            > > > idea of the fact that Christ belongs to another kingdom, where a
            > > > power of judgment other than that obtaining on the earth, holds
            > > > sway. Then, out of the consciousness that He stands in His
            > > > kingdom, Christ can answer: 'Verily, because thou hast some dim
            > > > foreboding of my kingdom, this day (that is with death) thou shalt
            > > > be with Me in My kingdom.' This is a reference to the
            > > > super-earthly Christ power that draws up the human invididuality
            > > > innto a spiritual kingdom. Earthly judgment, human judgment, must
            > > > of course say: 'As regards his Karma, the righ-hand malefactor
            > > > will have to make compensation for his guilt even as the one on
            > > > the left,' for the heavenly judgment, however, something else
            > > > holds good. But that is only the beginning of the matter, for of
            > > > course it might now be said: 'Yes, then the judgment of heaven
            > > > contradicts that of the earth. How can Christ forgive where the
            > > > earthly judgment demands karmic retribution?'
            > > > It is a difficult question, but we will try to approach it more
            > > > closely in the course of this lecture. I lay special emphasis on
            > > > the fact that we are touching here on one of the most difficult
            > > > questions of Spiritual Science. We must make a difference which
            > > > the human soul does not willingly make, because it does not like
            > > > following the thing to its ultimate consequences; there are
            > > > difficulties in following it up to its ultimate consequeces. We
            > > > shall find it, as I have said, a difficult subject, and you will
            > > > perhaps find it necessary to turn the thing over in your souls
            > > > many times in order to get at its real essence.
            > > > Firstly, we must make a distinction. We must consider the one
            > > > element that fulfils itself in Karma in an objective retribution.
            > > > Here we must clearly understand that man is certainly subject to
            > > > his Karma; that he has tomake karmic compensation for unjust
            > > > deeds, and when we think more deeply about it, a man will not
            > > > actually wish otherwise. For suppose that a man has done another
            > > > person wrong; in the moment of this wrong he is less perfect than
            > > > before he had done it, and he can only attain the grade of
            > > > perfection which was his before he committed the wrong by making
            > > > compensation for it. He must wish to make compensation for the
            > > > wrong; for only in such compensation does he create for himself
            > > > the stage of perfection which was his before the act was
            > > > committed. Thus, for the sake of our own perfecting we can wish
            > > > nothing else than that Karma is there as objective justice. When
            > > > we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish
            > > > that a sin should be so forgiven us; that is, for example, we were
            > > > to put a man's eyes out, the sin would be so forgiven us that we
            > > > should no longer need to wipe it away in our Karma. A man who puts
            > > > out the eyes of another is more imperfect than one who does not,
            > > > and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a
            > > > corresponding good act, for then only is he again the man that he
            > > > was before he committed the act. So that when we rightly consider
            > > > the nature of man, there can be no thought within us that when a
            > > > man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and
            > > > that Karma will be in some way adjusted. It is fully justified in
            > > > Karma that we are not excused a farthing, but that the debt must
            > > > be paid to the uttermost.
            > > > But there is another element with regard to the guilt. The guilt,
            > > > the sin with which we are laden, is not merely our own affair, it
            > > > is an objective cosmic concern, it means something for the
            > > > universe also. This is where the distinction must be made. The
            > > > crimes that we have committed are compensated in our Karma, but
            > > > the act of putting out another's eyes is an accomplished fact; if
            > > > we have, let us say, put someone's eyes out in the present
            > > > incarnation, and then in the next incarnation do something that
            > > > makes compensation for this act, yet for the objective course of
            > > > the universe the fact still remains that so many hundred years ago
            > > > we put someone's eyes out. That is an objective fact in the
            > > > universe. So far as we are concerned we make compensation for it
            > > > later. the guilt that we have personally contracted is adjusted in
            > > > our Karma, but the objective cosmic fact remains--we cannot efface
            > > > that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate
            > > > between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the
            > > > consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world. It is
            > > > highly important that we should make this distinction. And I may
            > > > now perhaps intruduce an occult observation which will make this
            > > > matter clearer.
            > > > When a man surveys the course of human evolution since the
            > > > Mystery of Golgotha and approaches the Akashic Record without
            > > > being permeated with the Christ-Being, it is easy, very easy
            > > > indeed to be led into error, for in this he will find records
            > > > which very often do not coincide with the karmic evolution of the
            > > > individuals. For example, let us suppose that is, say the year
            > > > 733, some man lived and incurred heavy guilt. The person now
            > > > examining the Akashic Record, may at first have no connection with
            > > > the Christ-Being. And behold ! the man's guilt cannot be found in
            > > > the Akashic Record. Examination of the Karma in a later
            > > > incarnation of this man reveals that there is something still in
            > > > his Karma which he has to wipe out. That must have existed in the
            > > > Akashic Record at a certain point of time, but it is not there.
            > > > Examination of the Karma reveals that the man has to make amends;
            > > > the guilt of the incarnation must have been inscribed in the
            > > > Akashic Record, but it is not there. Here is a contradiction. This
            > > > is an objective fact which may occur in numerous cases. I may meet
            > > > with a man today, and if through grace I am permitted to know
            > > > something about his Karma, I may perhaps find that some
            > > > misfortune, or stroke of fate stands in his Karma,that it is the
            > > > admustment of earlier guilt. If I turn to his earlier incarnations
            > > > and examoine what he did then, I do not find this fact registered
            > > > in the Akashic Record. How does this come about?
            > > > The reason of this is that Christ has actually taken upon Himself
            > > > the objective debt. In the moment that I permeate myself with
            > > > Christ, I discover the deed when I examine the Akashic Record with
            > > > Christ, Christ has taken it into His kingdom, and He bears it
            > > > further, so that when I look away from Christ I cannot find it in
            > > > the Akashic Record. This distinction must be observed: karmic
            > > > justice remains; but Christ intervenes in the effects of guilt in
            > > > the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom, and
            > > > bears it further. Christ is that Being Who, because He is of
            > > > another kingdom, is able to blot out in the Cosmos our debts and
            > > > our guilt, taking them upon Himself.
            > > > What is it that the Christ on the Cross of Golgotha really
            > > > conveys to the malefactor on the left? He does not utter it, but
            > > > in the fact that He does not utter it lies the essence. He says to
            > > > the malefactor on the left: 'What thou hast done will continue to
            > > > work in the spiritual world also and not merely in the physical
            > > > world.' To the malefactor on the right He says: 'Today shalt thou
            > > > be with Me in Paradise.' That is to say: 'I am beside thine act;
            > > > through thy Karma thou wilt have later on to do for thyself all
            > > > that the act signifies for thee, but what the act sifnifies for
            > > > the universe,' if I may use a trivial expression, 'that is My
            > > > concern.' This is what Christ says. The distinction made here is a
            > > > very important one, and the matter is not only of significance for
            > > > the time after the Mystery of Golgotha, but also for the time
            > > > before the Mystery of Golgotha............
            > > > [Sorry to have to end here. sp]
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
            > > > Unsubscribe:
            > > > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@y...
            > > > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@y...
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ---
            > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            > > Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
            >
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >


            ---
            Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
            Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
            Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
          • elaineupton2001
            Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine passage from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others) for your fine replies on the
            Message 5 of 15 , Aug 6, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine passage
              from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others) for
              your fine replies on the nature of time, on the limitations of
              Einstein and Oppenheimer (especially as we now remember Hiroshima and
              Nagasaki), and on matter and love. Particularly useful to me now is
              the distinction between Christened and non-Christened seeing in the
              Akashic Record, and on the deeper meaning of the two who hung beside
              the Christ on the Cross, and the whole question and distinction of
              forgiveness (Christ taking on our deeds in the objective spirit
              world) and karma (our responsibility for our deeds on the Earthly
              plane).

              On the matter of forgiveness, I have a question. What is meant by
              saying you shal forgive "seventy times seven"? Moreover, what is
              meant by calling for the act of human forgiveness, that which takes
              place between one human and another? Where does this come into the
              whole picture of karma on the one hand, and the Christ deed of taking
              on our sin and its consequences in the spirit world?

              For example: if someone wrongs me, and later that person asks me for
              forgiveness, what would it mean for me to forgive that person? Is
              that person thus released from his or her karma? Or, as one forgiving
              am I taking on a Christ-like role, to a degree, at least, as in
              an "imitation of Christ", somehow taking on that person's deed on a
              higher level? If so, what maturity and spiritual development is
              required of me to be able to dispense that level of responsibility?!!

              Also, in this vein of earthly retribution and the question of
              forgiveness (and of the related reconciliation), I think of such as
              the apparently great events that took place during recent years in
              South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the NObel Peace Laureate, is
              famous by now for his way of what he calls "restorative justice" (as
              differing from "retributive justice"). In the work of the post-
              apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the new Republic of
              South Africa (a commission led by the Archbishop), wrongdoers (doers
              of heinous crimes, as well as others) were called before the
              commission and asked to own up to what they did, to express
              themselves publicly and particularly in view of the families of those
              they had wronged. When this was done, there was no going to jail, no
              retribution, but instead, amnesty, and it is said there was a feeling
              of healing and cleansing, just through the confession and the
              publicness of it all. The humility required to confess in public, to
              own up to one's sins, was considered to be enough, by, apparently,
              black and white, wrongdoers and ones harmed by the wrongdoing.--My
              question, then, is whether there is some Christ-presence in this
              whole process of confession and "reparative" (not "retributive")
              justice. Is there? Is this an example of human beings, whether they
              are conscious of anthroposophy or not, taking on a higher Christ-like
              calling?

              "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you." --Forgive not just
              once or seven times, but "seventy times seven". What are we being
              called to?

              I'll appreciate hearing from those who are moved.

              Blessings,
              elaine
            • utopia_planetia_2000
              Given the assumption that space and time are relative, so is karma. The forces behind karma are guilt, anger and pain among others. If we change our
              Message 6 of 15 , Aug 7, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Given the assumption that space and time are relative, so is karma.
                The forces behind karma are guilt, anger and pain among others.

                If we change our perceptions, these feelings can be rendered
                inconsistant. The idea of forgiveness cannot exist without judgement;
                if we "relativize" our experience to transcend anger for example,
                there is no need for forgiveness since there was no offense in the
                first place. I think compassion is the key. A state in which we view
                the world without wanting to change it according to the view of the
                limited ego. "Not I, but Christ in me".

                In the world in which we live, we only have a certain freedom within
                the first three dimensions. The fourth, identified as time, we are
                totally subject to it. The fourth chakra, Anahata chakra, the heart
                chakra, is where some say a higher understanding of Christ begins. A
                vision of compassion that transcends time. A fifth dimension where
                the heart moves the body (will) and mind into a higher frequency,
                preparing for the Jupiter state. A matter of harmony between heart,
                will and mind.

                Just some ideas.

                I don't know the expression forgiving 70 X 7!

                Marc

                --- In anthroposophy@y..., "elaineupton2001" <elaineupton@h...> wrote:
                > Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine passage
                > from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others) for
                > your fine replies on the nature of time, on the limitations of
                > Einstein and Oppenheimer (especially as we now remember Hiroshima
                and
                > Nagasaki), and on matter and love. Particularly useful to me now is
                > the distinction between Christened and non-Christened seeing in the
                > Akashic Record, and on the deeper meaning of the two who hung
                beside
                > the Christ on the Cross, and the whole question and distinction of
                > forgiveness (Christ taking on our deeds in the objective spirit
                > world) and karma (our responsibility for our deeds on the Earthly
                > plane).
                >
                > On the matter of forgiveness, I have a question. What is meant by
                > saying you shal forgive "seventy times seven"? Moreover, what is
                > meant by calling for the act of human forgiveness, that which takes
                > place between one human and another? Where does this come into the
                > whole picture of karma on the one hand, and the Christ deed of
                taking
                > on our sin and its consequences in the spirit world?
                >
                > For example: if someone wrongs me, and later that person asks me
                for
                > forgiveness, what would it mean for me to forgive that person? Is
                > that person thus released from his or her karma? Or, as one
                forgiving
                > am I taking on a Christ-like role, to a degree, at least, as in
                > an "imitation of Christ", somehow taking on that person's deed on a
                > higher level? If so, what maturity and spiritual development is
                > required of me to be able to dispense that level of
                responsibility?!!
                >
                > Also, in this vein of earthly retribution and the question of
                > forgiveness (and of the related reconciliation), I think of such as
                > the apparently great events that took place during recent years in
                > South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the NObel Peace Laureate, is
                > famous by now for his way of what he calls "restorative justice"
                (as
                > differing from "retributive justice"). In the work of the post-
                > apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the new Republic
                of
                > South Africa (a commission led by the Archbishop), wrongdoers
                (doers
                > of heinous crimes, as well as others) were called before the
                > commission and asked to own up to what they did, to express
                > themselves publicly and particularly in view of the families of
                those
                > they had wronged. When this was done, there was no going to jail,
                no
                > retribution, but instead, amnesty, and it is said there was a
                feeling
                > of healing and cleansing, just through the confession and the
                > publicness of it all. The humility required to confess in public,
                to
                > own up to one's sins, was considered to be enough, by, apparently,
                > black and white, wrongdoers and ones harmed by the wrongdoing.--My
                > question, then, is whether there is some Christ-presence in this
                > whole process of confession and "reparative" (not "retributive")
                > justice. Is there? Is this an example of human beings, whether they
                > are conscious of anthroposophy or not, taking on a higher Christ-
                like
                > calling?
                >
                > "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you." --Forgive not just
                > once or seven times, but "seventy times seven". What are we being
                > called to?
                >
                > I'll appreciate hearing from those who are moved.
                >
                > Blessings,
                > elaine
              • utopia_planetia_2000
                Given the assumption that space and time are relative, so is karma. The forces behind karma are guilt, anger and pain among others. If we change our
                Message 7 of 15 , Aug 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Given the assumption that space and time are relative, so is karma.
                  The forces behind karma are guilt, anger and pain among others.

                  If we change our perceptions, these feelings can be rendered
                  inconsistant. The idea of forgiveness cannot exist without judgement;
                  if we "relativize" our experience to transcend anger for example,
                  there is no need for forgiveness since there was no offense in the
                  first place. I think compassion is the key. A state in which we view
                  the world without wanting to change it according to the view of the
                  limited ego. "Not I, but Christ in me".

                  In the world in which we live, we only have a certain freedom within
                  the first three dimensions. The fourth, identified as time, we are
                  totally subject to it. The fourth chakra, Anahata chakra, the heart
                  chakra, is where some say a higher understanding of Christ begins. A
                  vision of compassion that transcends time. A fifth dimension where
                  the heart moves the body (will) and mind into a higher frequency,
                  preparing for the Jupiter state. A matter of harmony between heart,
                  will and mind.

                  Just some ideas.

                  I don't know the expression forgiving 70 X 7!

                  Marc

                  --- In anthroposophy@y..., "elaineupton2001" <elaineupton@h...> wrote:
                  > Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine passage
                  > from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others) for
                  > your fine replies on the nature of time, on the limitations of
                  > Einstein and Oppenheimer (especially as we now remember Hiroshima
                  and
                  > Nagasaki), and on matter and love. Particularly useful to me now is
                  > the distinction between Christened and non-Christened seeing in the
                  > Akashic Record, and on the deeper meaning of the two who hung
                  beside
                  > the Christ on the Cross, and the whole question and distinction of
                  > forgiveness (Christ taking on our deeds in the objective spirit
                  > world) and karma (our responsibility for our deeds on the Earthly
                  > plane).
                  >
                  > On the matter of forgiveness, I have a question. What is meant by
                  > saying you shal forgive "seventy times seven"? Moreover, what is
                  > meant by calling for the act of human forgiveness, that which takes
                  > place between one human and another? Where does this come into the
                  > whole picture of karma on the one hand, and the Christ deed of
                  taking
                  > on our sin and its consequences in the spirit world?
                  >
                  > For example: if someone wrongs me, and later that person asks me
                  for
                  > forgiveness, what would it mean for me to forgive that person? Is
                  > that person thus released from his or her karma? Or, as one
                  forgiving
                  > am I taking on a Christ-like role, to a degree, at least, as in
                  > an "imitation of Christ", somehow taking on that person's deed on a
                  > higher level? If so, what maturity and spiritual development is
                  > required of me to be able to dispense that level of
                  responsibility?!!
                  >
                  > Also, in this vein of earthly retribution and the question of
                  > forgiveness (and of the related reconciliation), I think of such as
                  > the apparently great events that took place during recent years in
                  > South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the NObel Peace Laureate, is
                  > famous by now for his way of what he calls "restorative justice"
                  (as
                  > differing from "retributive justice"). In the work of the post-
                  > apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the new Republic
                  of
                  > South Africa (a commission led by the Archbishop), wrongdoers
                  (doers
                  > of heinous crimes, as well as others) were called before the
                  > commission and asked to own up to what they did, to express
                  > themselves publicly and particularly in view of the families of
                  those
                  > they had wronged. When this was done, there was no going to jail,
                  no
                  > retribution, but instead, amnesty, and it is said there was a
                  feeling
                  > of healing and cleansing, just through the confession and the
                  > publicness of it all. The humility required to confess in public,
                  to
                  > own up to one's sins, was considered to be enough, by, apparently,
                  > black and white, wrongdoers and ones harmed by the wrongdoing.--My
                  > question, then, is whether there is some Christ-presence in this
                  > whole process of confession and "reparative" (not "retributive")
                  > justice. Is there? Is this an example of human beings, whether they
                  > are conscious of anthroposophy or not, taking on a higher Christ-
                  like
                  > calling?
                  >
                  > "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you." --Forgive not just
                  > once or seven times, but "seventy times seven". What are we being
                  > called to?
                  >
                  > I'll appreciate hearing from those who are moved.
                  >
                  > Blessings,
                  > elaine
                • Lil Ole Miss
                  Dear Elaine, What a wonderfully thoughtful group of very valid off-shoots as well as specifics, so to say, you ve presented us with, Elaine. It s great to hear
                  Message 8 of 15 , Aug 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Elaine,

                    What a wonderfully thoughtful group of very valid off-shoots as
                    well as specifics, so to say, you've presented us with, Elaine.
                    It's great to hear from you.

                    elaineupton2001 wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine passage
                    > from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others) for
                    > your fine replies on the nature of time, on the limitations of
                    > Einstein and Oppenheimer (especially as we now remember Hiroshima and
                    > Nagasaki), and on matter and love. Particularly useful to me now is
                    > the distinction between Christened and non-Christened seeing in the
                    > Akashic Record, and on the deeper meaning of the two who hung beside
                    > the Christ on the Cross, and the whole question and distinction of
                    > forgiveness (Christ taking on our deeds in the objective spirit
                    > world) and karma (our responsibility for our deeds on the Earthly
                    > plane).
                    >
                    > On the matter of forgiveness, I have a question. What is meant by
                    > saying you shal forgive "seventy times seven"?

                    About "70 times 7": I'm not exactly certain this deals solely and
                    specifically with forgiveness, but with all decisions, deeds,
                    thoughts, etc. Somewhere Steiner speaks of this, say for example
                    in relation to an act of any sort, to the effect that we must hold
                    the act within our soul without acting upon it until we are
                    absolutely and clearly certain we truly feel the rightness within
                    our souls, as well as fully realizing the lasting effects of it
                    and also finding our decision totally accurate. [I'm paraphrasing
                    here very poorly, and I apologize.] Meditation is one excellent
                    way of coming to our conclusion, but we must deal with it, I seem
                    to remember his saying, 7 days, and if that isn't sufficient, then
                    2 times 7 days, 3 times 7 or as often as 70 times 7 until we are
                    totally correct. Someone please correct me here should I be in
                    error on any point(s)? It seems to me this point is dealt with in
                    one of his "basic books." Perhaps my understanding of this is
                    incorrect but our actions, including forgiveness, deals not only
                    with person to person, for example, but incorporates The Christ
                    and the entire Spiritual Worlds as well as having an effect upon
                    the physical world.

                    Moreover, what is
                    > meant by calling for the act of human forgiveness, that which takes
                    > place between one human and another? Where does this come into the
                    > whole picture of karma on the one hand, and the Christ deed of taking
                    > on our sin and its consequences in the spirit world?

                    It's my understanding that Karma is, with very rare exceptions
                    perhaps brought about by the person himself, irrevokable
                    regardless of whether it is The Christ Who forgives and takes our
                    burden upon Himself, or whether it is one human erasing another's
                    deed from within his/her very own soul through Love and
                    Compassion. I don't know how this works in conjunction with The
                    Christ, but I certainly need to know. Compassion is, unless I'm
                    greatly mistaken, perhaps the sole human quality which takes us
                    out of ourselves completely and into another being or even another
                    realm - we are "out of ourselves," so to say. I feel also, Elaine,
                    this is the trait we must have for the 6th epoch - how else could
                    we feel another's pain, hunger, suffering of all conceivable
                    kinds? But it seems to me we must have something else included
                    within Compassion.
                    >
                    > For example: if someone wrongs me, and later that person asks me for
                    > forgiveness, what would it mean for me to forgive that person? Is
                    > that person thus released from his or her karma?

                    It seems to me since Karma remains even when The Christ forgives
                    us and takes our burden upon Himself, that we cannot alter
                    another's Karma even though we totally forgive him/her.

                    Or, as one forgiving
                    > am I taking on a Christ-like role, to a degree, at least, as in
                    > an "imitation of Christ", somehow taking on that person's deed on a
                    > higher level? If so, what maturity and spiritual development is
                    > required of me to be able to dispense that level of responsibility?!!

                    There is something Steiner says regarding the above when he speaks
                    about our ability to be able to act as our own Father Confessor
                    and I'm not exactly sure how that ties in, if it does at all, with
                    your points above, but I'll try to find out for you if I can. Does
                    anyone on the list know what is involved here, or where it might
                    be found? Elaine, it would seem clear a very high level of
                    advancement must exist within a human in order to be his/her own
                    Father Confessor, but to exactly what heights, I don't know enough
                    to say.
                    >
                    > Also, in this vein of earthly retribution and the question of
                    > forgiveness (and of the related reconciliation), I think of such as
                    > the apparently great events that took place during recent years in
                    > South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the NObel Peace Laureate, is
                    > famous by now for his way of what he calls "restorative justice" (as
                    > differing from "retributive justice"). In the work of the post-
                    > apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the new Republic of
                    > South Africa (a commission led by the Archbishop), wrongdoers (doers
                    > of heinous crimes, as well as others) were called before the
                    > commission and asked to own up to what they did, to express
                    > themselves publicly and particularly in view of the families of those
                    > they had wronged. When this was done, there was no going to jail, no
                    > retribution, but instead, amnesty, and it is said there was a feeling
                    > of healing and cleansing, just through the confession and the
                    > publicness of it all. The humility required to confess in public, to
                    > own up to one's sins, was considered to be enough, by, apparently,
                    > black and white, wrongdoers and ones harmed by the wrongdoing.--My
                    > question, then, is whether there is some Christ-presence in this
                    > whole process of confession and "reparative" (not "retributive")
                    > justice. Is there? Is this an example of human beings, whether they
                    > are conscious of anthroposophy or not, taking on a higher Christ-like
                    > calling?

                    WOW! This is a tough one I don't believe I have the knowledge or
                    wisdom to even comment on. I wonder how deeply sincere the "guilty
                    one" must be in order to bring any effect - that is, suppose
                    someone had no shame or consciousness of guilt or sorrow, yet
                    still admits their misdeeds, and another is suffering terribly
                    from the wrong he/she has done and confesses, plus all degrees
                    inbetween, it would seem the one truly suffering from the wrongs
                    having been committed would touch The Christ Impulse regardless of
                    whether or not this person knows The Christ as Christ or by
                    another name? I really feel knowledge of the Trinity in some form
                    or fashion might need to come into play regardless of the name
                    given. Christ is the Redeemer. Most humans realize a Creator, Whom
                    we call The Father, but how many realize the One who redeems us?
                    >
                    > "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you." --Forgive not just
                    > once or seven times, but "seventy times seven". What are we being
                    > called to?

                    More than I'm aware of or able to do, certainly, but a good start
                    might seem to become as Christ-like as possible, since then, how
                    could we not love, bless, forgive and care for another with deep
                    compassion as we do for ourselves? Somewhere it is said the
                    Bodhisattva who is to become the Maitreya Buddha around 3500 a.d.
                    lives as Christ-like a life as is possible in order to reach his
                    goal.
                    >
                    > I'll appreciate hearing from those who are moved.

                    I'm greatly moved, Elaine, but I've fallen very far short of any
                    real answers - just a few muddled thoughts.
                    >
                    > Blessings,
                    > elaine

                    Blessings,
                    Sheila
                  • LilOleMiss
                    Dear Bill, I feel your words pinpoint as well as amplify what Steiner says about this. I understood him to mean ONE specific error can be forgiven by Christ
                    Message 9 of 15 , Aug 8, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Bill,

                      I feel your words "pinpoint" as well as amplify what Steiner says about
                      this. I understood him to mean ONE specific error can be forgiven by Christ
                      when we recognize The Christ and ask Him for forgiveness for that ONE
                      specific error. It doesn't seem to me an "across the board" wiping clean of
                      every error we're guilty of is what is meant. We must realize they are in
                      fact errors or sins. At least this is the way this seems to me. I'm glad you
                      pointed this out.

                      Blessings,
                      Sheila

                      > This is an important point made in these lectures that is misunderstood by
                      > those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it something
                      > like this. Whatever we do here in the physical world affects karma, both
                      our
                      > individual karma and earth karma.
                      >
                      > The idea is that, before we do something, the conditions are different
                      than
                      > after and these after-conditions exist in objective ways that rectifying
                      our
                      > individual karma cannot possibly ever change. In other words, the act
                      would
                      > remain as a lasting effect on earth evolution unless there was some
                      > interception. These acts are not visible to all who view the Akashic
                      Script
                      > because they have not embraced the Christ being. Once we take in Christ,
                      we
                      > see that he has taken on these acts for us. Through the process of "Not I,
                      > but the Christ in me.", Christ takes these burdens off of our souls for,
                      if
                      > they remained, we would not be able to evolve.
                      >
                      > Those who feel that Christ forgives all their sins are under the influence
                      > of Lucifer and, while they may be able to progress spiritually as what
                      > Steiner refers to as "species-humans", they become stuck materialistically
                      > in earth stage of evolution.
                      >
                      > I think most of the above is also below.
                      >
                      > Bill
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@...>
                      > To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:56 AM
                      > Subject: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record
                      >
                      >
                      > > Dear Listees,
                      > >
                      > > On 7/23/02 in message #4297, Margaret Cooper, writing as
                      > > Sieglunda, spoke of how The Christ is able to remove certain
                      > > "readings", I suppose they could be termed, from the Akashic
                      > > Record. In response to her statements, Jeff Auen, on the same date
                      > > in message #4299 requested a source for her information. As is
                      > > usual when one reads Steiner a great deal, it often becomes
                      > > impossible to recall exactly where what is, so I was asked to keep
                      > > an eye out for this very important point. Sooner or later, we
                      > > always seem to meet these things again at the most unexpected
                      > > times, and so it was that tonight - uh - last night, now - I came
                      > > across the passage referred to in Steiner's *Christ and the Human
                      > > Soul*, Lecture 3 of 4, 12-16 July 1914 given at Norrkoping,
                      > > Sweden. Because some of you may have difficulty acquiring this
                      > > work, or for some other reason, I should like to include the
                      > > relevent portion en toto as it was first published in my 1927
                      > > edition. I would be deeply appreciated to have all my typos
                      > > pointed out for correction. Fair warning to those who are already
                      > > familiar with this work...:)
                      > >
                      > > CHRIST AND THE HUMAN SOUL
                      > >
                      > > by Rudolf Steiner
                      > >
                      > > Lecture 3
                      > >
                      > > One of the concepts which must rise up within us when we speak of
                      > > the relations of Christ to the human soul is that of sin and its
                      > > debt. We know what the significance of the concepts of guilt and
                      > > sin have in the Christianity of St. Paul. Our present age is,
                      > > however, little adapted for a really deep inner understanding of
                      > > the wider connections between the concepts 'Death and Sin' and
                      > > 'Death and Immortality,' that are to be found in Pau's writings.
                      > > This lies in the materialism of our times. Let us recll what I
                      > > said in the first lecture of this course, that there could be no
                      > > true immortality of the human soul without a continuation of
                      > > consciousness into the conditions after death. An ending of
                      > > consciousness of man's being after death would mean that what is
                      > > the most important of aoll, that which makes man into man, would
                      > > not exist after death. An unconscious human soul surviving after
                      > > death would nopt mean much more than the sum of atoms acknowledged
                      > > by materialism, which remain even when the human body is
                      > > destroyed.
                      > > For Paul it was a matter of unshakable conviction that it is only
                      > > possible to speak of immortality if the individual consciousness
                      > > is maintained. And as he had to think of the individual
                      > > consciousness as subject to sin and guilt it may be taken for
                      > > granted that Paul would think: 'If a man's consciousness is
                      > > obscured after death by sin and guilt, or by their results--if,
                      > > after death, consciousness is disturbed by sin and guilt, this
                      > > signifies that sin and guilt really kill man--they kill him as
                      > > soul, as spirit.' The materialistic consciousness of our timeis
                      > > far remote from this. Many modern philosophic investigators are
                      > > content to speak of a continuance of the life of the human soul,
                      > > whereas the immortality of man may only be identified with a
                      > > conscious continuance of the human soul after death.
                      > > A difficulty of course arises here, especially for the
                      > > anthroposophical world conception. To be faced with this
                      > > difficulty we need only direct our attention to the relationship
                      > > of the concepts of 'Guilt and Sin' and of 'Karma.' Many people get
                      > > over this by saying that they believe Karma to be a debt which a
                      > > man contracts in any one of his incarnations; he bears this debt
                      > > with him, with his Karma, and discharges it later; thus, in the
                      > > course of incarnations, a compensation is brought about. Here
                      > > begins the difficulty. These people then say: 'How can this be
                      > > reconcilable with the Christian acceptation of the conception of
                      > > the forgiveness of sins through Christ?' And yet again the idea of
                      > > the forgiveness of sins is intimately bound up with true
                      > > Christianity. It is only necessary to think of this one example:
                      > > Christ on the Cross between two malefactors. The malefactor on the
                      > > left hand mocks at Christ: 'If Thou wilt be Divine, help Thyself
                      > > and us!' The malefactor on the right held that the other ought not
                      > > to speak thus, for both had merited their fate of crucifixion--the
                      > > just award of their deeds; whereas He was innocent, and had yet to
                      > > experience the same fate. The malefactor on the right added to
                      > > this: 'Think of me when Thou art in Thy Kingdom." And Christ
                      > > answered him: 'Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with
                      > > Me in Paradise.' It is not permissible merely to gainsay these
                      > > words and omit them from the Gospel, for they are very
                      > > significant. The difficulty arises from the question: If this
                      > > malefactor on the right has to wash away what he has brought about
                      > > in his Karma, what does it mean when Christ, as it were, pardoning
                      > > and forgiving him, says: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
                      > > Paradise'? It may appear that the malefactor on the right will
                      > > have to wash away his debt with his Karma, even as the one on the
                      > > left. Why is there a difference made by Christ between the
                      > > malefactor on the right and the one on the left? There is no doubt
                      > > at all that the conception of Karma is here met by a difficulty
                      > > that is not easy to solve. It is solved however when we try to
                      > > probe more deeply into Christianity by means of Spiritual Science.
                      > > And now I shall approach the subject from quit another side, the
                      > > nature of which is already known to you, but which can bring
                      > > certain remarkable circumstances to light.
                      > > You know how often we speak of Lucifer and Ahriman, and how
                      > > Lucifer and Ahriman are represented in my Mystery Plays. When one
                      > > begins to consider the thing in a human-anthropomorphic sense and
                      > > simply makes of Lucifer a kind of inner and of Ahriman a kind of
                      > > outer criminal, there will be difficulty in getting on; for we
                      > > must not forget that Lucifer, besides being the bringer of evil
                      > > into the world, the inner evil that arises through the passions,
                      > > is also the bringer of freedom; Lucifer plays an important role in
                      > > the universe. In the same way it must be said of Ahriman that he,
                      > > too, plays an important part in the universe. When we began to
                      > > speak more of Lucifer and Ahriman, it was our experience that many
                      > > of those who were associated with us became uneasy; they still had
                      > > a feeling left of what people have always thought of Lucifer,
                      > > namely, that he is a fearful criminal in the world, against whom
                      > > one must defend oneself. Feeling this about Lucifer they could not
                      > > of course give unqualified assent to a different conception
                      > > because they must assign to Lucifer an important role in the
                      > > universe, and yet again Lucifer must be regarded as an opponent of
                      > > progressive Gods, as a being who crosses the plan of those Gods to
                      > > whom honour is rightly due. Thus, when we speak of Lucifer in this
                      > > way, we are in effect ascribing an important role in the universe
                      > > to an enemy of the Gods. And we must do the same in the case of
                      > > Ahriman. From this point of view it it quite easy to understand
                      > > the human feeling that asks: 'What is the right attitude to adopt
                      > > towards Lucifer and Ahriman; am I to love them or hate them?' It
                      > > should be quite clear from the way in which one speaks of Lucifer
                      > > and Ahriman that they are beings who, by their whole nature do not
                      > > belong to the physical plane, but have their mission and task in
                      > > the Cosmos outside the physical plane, in the spiritual worlds. In
                      > > the Munich lectures of the summer of 1913, [The Secrets of the
                      > > Threshold. sp] I laid particular emphasis on th fact that the
                      > > progressive Gods have assigned to Lucifer and Ahriman roles in the
                      > > spiritual worlds; and that discrepancy and disharmony only appear
                      > > when they bring down their activities into the physical plane, and
                      > > arrogate to themselves rights which are not allotted to them. But
                      > > we must submit to one thing, to which the human soul does not
                      > > readily submit when these matters are under consdieration, and it
                      > > is this: that our judgment, our human judgment, as we pass it,
                      > > holds good only for the physical plane, and that this judgment,
                      > > right as it may be for the physical plane, cannot be simply
                      > > transferred to the higher worlds. We must therefore gradually
                      > > accustom ourselves in Anthroposophy to widen out our judgments and
                      > > our world of concepts and ideas. It is because
                      > > materialistically-minded men of the present day do not want to
                      > > widen their judgment, but prefer to hold to that which holds good
                      > > for the physical plane that they have such difficulty in
                      > > understandint Anthroposophy, although it is all perfectly
                      > > intelligible.
                      > > If we say: 'one power is hostile to another,' or 'hostility is
                      > > unseemly,' it is quite correct from the physical plane. But the
                      > > same thing does not hold good for the higher planes. On the higher
                      > > planes the judgment must be widened. Just as in the realm of
                      > > electricity positive and negative electricity are necessary, so
                      > > also is spiritual opposition necessary in order that the universe
                      > > may exist in its entirety; it is necessary that the spirits should
                      > > oppose one another. Here comes in the truth of the saying of
                      > > Herakleitos, that strife as well as love constitutes the universe.
                      > > It is only when Lucifer works upon the human soul, and when
                      > > through the human soul strife is brought into the physical world,
                      > > that strife is wrong. But this does not hold good for the higher
                      > > worlds; there the hostility of the spirits is an element that
                      > > belongs to the whole structure, to the whole evolution of the
                      > > universe. This implies that as soon as we come into the higher
                      > > worlds, we must employ other standards, other colourings for our
                      > > judgments. That is why there is often a feeling of shock when we
                      > > speak of Lucifer and Ahriman on the one side as the opponents of
                      > > the Gods, and on the other side as being necessary to the whole
                      > > course of the universal order. Hence we must, above all things,
                      > > hold firmly in our minds that a man comes into collision with the
                      > > universal order if he allows the judgment which holds good for the
                      > > physical plane to hold good for the higher worlds.
                      > > This is the root of the whole matter and it must again and again
                      > > be emphasised that Christ, as Christ, does not belong to the order
                      > > of the other entities of the physical plane. From the moment of
                      > > the baptism in Jordan, a Being Who had not previously existed on
                      > > Earth, a Being Who does not belong to the order of earth-beings,
                      > > entered into the corporal being of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in
                      > > Christ, we are concerned with a Being Who could truly say to the
                      > > disciples: 'I am from above, but ye are from below,' that is to
                      > > say: 'I am a Being of the kingdom of heaven, ye are of the kingdom
                      > > of earth.' Now let us consider the consequences of this. Must
                      > > earthly judgment that is entirely justifiable as such, and that
                      > > everyone on earth must maintain, be also the judgment of that
                      > > Cosmic Being Who, as Christ, entered the Jesus body? That Being,
                      > > Who entered the body of Jesus at the baptism in Jordan, applies
                      > > not an earthly but a heavenly judgment. He must judge differently
                      > > from ean.
                      > > And now let us consider the whole import of the words spoken on
                      > > Golgotha. The malefactor on the left believes that in the Christ
                      > > merely an earthly being is present, not a being whose realm is
                      > > beyond the earthly kingdom. But just before death there comes to
                      > > the consciousness of the malefactor on the right, 'Thy kingdom, O
                      > > Christ, is another; think of me when Thou art in Thy kingdom.' At
                      > > this moment the malefactor on the right shows that he has a dim
                      > > idea of the fact that Christ belongs to another kingdom, where a
                      > > power of judgment other than that obtaining on the earth, holds
                      > > sway. Then, out of the consciousness that He stands in His
                      > > kingdom, Christ can answer: 'Verily, because thou hast some dim
                      > > foreboding of my kingdom, this day (that is with death) thou shalt
                      > > be with Me in My kingdom.' This is a reference to the
                      > > super-earthly Christ power that draws up the human invididuality
                      > > innto a spiritual kingdom. Earthly judgment, human judgment, must
                      > > of course say: 'As regards his Karma, the righ-hand malefactor
                      > > will have to make compensation for his guilt even as the one on
                      > > the left,' for the heavenly judgment, however, something else
                      > > holds good. But that is only the beginning of the matter, for of
                      > > course it might now be said: 'Yes, then the judgment of heaven
                      > > contradicts that of the earth. How can Christ forgive where the
                      > > earthly judgment demands karmic retribution?'
                      > > It is a difficult question, but we will try to approach it more
                      > > closely in the course of this lecture. I lay special emphasis on
                      > > the fact that we are touching here on one of the most difficult
                      > > questions of Spiritual Science. We must make a difference which
                      > > the human soul does not willingly make, because it does not like
                      > > following the thing to its ultimate consequences; there are
                      > > difficulties in following it up to its ultimate consequeces. We
                      > > shall find it, as I have said, a difficult subject, and you will
                      > > perhaps find it necessary to turn the thing over in your souls
                      > > many times in order to get at its real essence.
                      > > Firstly, we must make a distinction. We must consider the one
                      > > element that fulfils itself in Karma in an objective retribution.
                      > > Here we must clearly understand that man is certainly subject to
                      > > his Karma; that he has tomake karmic compensation for unjust
                      > > deeds, and when we think more deeply about it, a man will not
                      > > actually wish otherwise. For suppose that a man has done another
                      > > person wrong; in the moment of this wrong he is less perfect than
                      > > before he had done it, and he can only attain the grade of
                      > > perfection which was his before he committed the wrong by making
                      > > compensation for it. He must wish to make compensation for the
                      > > wrong; for only in such compensation does he create for himself
                      > > the stage of perfection which was his before the act was
                      > > committed. Thus, for the sake of our own perfecting we can wish
                      > > nothing else than that Karma is there as objective justice. When
                      > > we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish
                      > > that a sin should be so forgiven us; that is, for example, we were
                      > > to put a man's eyes out, the sin would be so forgiven us that we
                      > > should no longer need to wipe it away in our Karma. A man who puts
                      > > out the eyes of another is more imperfect than one who does not,
                      > > and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a
                      > > corresponding good act, for then only is he again the man that he
                      > > was before he committed the act. So that when we rightly consider
                      > > the nature of man, there can be no thought within us that when a
                      > > man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and
                      > > that Karma will be in some way adjusted. It is fully justified in
                      > > Karma that we are not excused a farthing, but that the debt must
                      > > be paid to the uttermost.
                      > > But there is another element with regard to the guilt. The guilt,
                      > > the sin with which we are laden, is not merely our own affair, it
                      > > is an objective cosmic concern, it means something for the
                      > > universe also. This is where the distinction must be made. The
                      > > crimes that we have committed are compensated in our Karma, but
                      > > the act of putting out another's eyes is an accomplished fact; if
                      > > we have, let us say, put someone's eyes out in the present
                      > > incarnation, and then in the next incarnation do something that
                      > > makes compensation for this act, yet for the objective course of
                      > > the universe the fact still remains that so many hundred years ago
                      > > we put someone's eyes out. That is an objective fact in the
                      > > universe. So far as we are concerned we make compensation for it
                      > > later. the guilt that we have personally contracted is adjusted in
                      > > our Karma, but the objective cosmic fact remains--we cannot efface
                      > > that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate
                      > > between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the
                      > > consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world. It is
                      > > highly important that we should make this distinction. And I may
                      > > now perhaps intruduce an occult observation which will make this
                      > > matter clearer.
                      > > When a man surveys the course of human evolution since the
                      > > Mystery of Golgotha and approaches the Akashic Record without
                      > > being permeated with the Christ-Being, it is easy, very easy
                      > > indeed to be led into error, for in this he will find records
                      > > which very often do not coincide with the karmic evolution of the
                      > > individuals. For example, let us suppose that is, say the year
                      > > 733, some man lived and incurred heavy guilt. The person now
                      > > examining the Akashic Record, may at first have no connection with
                      > > the Christ-Being. And behold ! the man's guilt cannot be found in
                      > > the Akashic Record. Examination of the Karma in a later
                      > > incarnation of this man reveals that there is something still in
                      > > his Karma which he has to wipe out. That must have existed in the
                      > > Akashic Record at a certain point of time, but it is not there.
                      > > Examination of the Karma reveals that the man has to make amends;
                      > > the guilt of the incarnation must have been inscribed in the
                      > > Akashic Record, but it is not there. Here is a contradiction. This
                      > > is an objective fact which may occur in numerous cases. I may meet
                      > > with a man today, and if through grace I am permitted to know
                      > > something about his Karma, I may perhaps find that some
                      > > misfortune, or stroke of fate stands in his Karma,that it is the
                      > > admustment of earlier guilt. If I turn to his earlier incarnations
                      > > and examoine what he did then, I do not find this fact registered
                      > > in the Akashic Record. How does this come about?
                      > > The reason of this is that Christ has actually taken upon Himself
                      > > the objective debt. In the moment that I permeate myself with
                      > > Christ, I discover the deed when I examine the Akashic Record with
                      > > Christ, Christ has taken it into His kingdom, and He bears it
                      > > further, so that when I look away from Christ I cannot find it in
                      > > the Akashic Record. This distinction must be observed: karmic
                      > > justice remains; but Christ intervenes in the effects of guilt in
                      > > the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom, and
                      > > bears it further. Christ is that Being Who, because He is of
                      > > another kingdom, is able to blot out in the Cosmos our debts and
                      > > our guilt, taking them upon Himself.
                      > > What is it that the Christ on the Cross of Golgotha really
                      > > conveys to the malefactor on the left? He does not utter it, but
                      > > in the fact that He does not utter it lies the essence. He says to
                      > > the malefactor on the left: 'What thou hast done will continue to
                      > > work in the spiritual world also and not merely in the physical
                      > > world.' To the malefactor on the right He says: 'Today shalt thou
                      > > be with Me in Paradise.' That is to say: 'I am beside thine act;
                      > > through thy Karma thou wilt have later on to do for thyself all
                      > > that the act signifies for thee, but what the act sifnifies for
                      > > the universe,' if I may use a trivial expression, 'that is My
                      > > concern.' This is what Christ says. The distinction made here is a
                      > > very important one, and the matter is not only of significance for
                      > > the time after the Mystery of Golgotha, but also for the time
                      > > before the Mystery of Golgotha............
                      > > [Sorry to have to end here. sp]
                    • Bill N
                      I think this error would be not accepting the Christ being and that forgivness here is related to that. Or it could be the fact that we don t recognize that
                      Message 10 of 15 , Aug 9, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I think this "error" would be not accepting the Christ being and that
                        forgivness here is related to that. Or it could be the fact that we don't
                        recognize that we are responsible for our karma and that is forgiven. I
                        don't see one forgivness because, if that was the case, then why not ask for
                        the whole ball of wax at once.

                        The understanding of "Not I, but the Christ in me" takes us out of this idea
                        of forgiveness for personal 'mistakes' and puts us into a situation of
                        taking responsibility for ammending them.

                        I feel that when one 'forgives' someone for something, one is taking
                        responsibility for their own karma and absolving the other person of any
                        blame. Remember, when another person is involved in what is happening to
                        you, they are also engaging their karma and have to also take responsibility
                        and make their own amends respectively.

                        Bill
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@...>
                        To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 5:59 PM
                        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record


                        > Dear Bill,
                        >
                        > I feel your words "pinpoint" as well as amplify what Steiner says about
                        > this. I understood him to mean ONE specific error can be forgiven by
                        Christ
                        > when we recognize The Christ and ask Him for forgiveness for that ONE
                        > specific error. It doesn't seem to me an "across the board" wiping clean
                        of
                        > every error we're guilty of is what is meant. We must realize they are in
                        > fact errors or sins. At least this is the way this seems to me. I'm glad
                        you
                        > pointed this out.
                        >
                        > Blessings,
                        > Sheila
                        >
                        > > This is an important point made in these lectures that is misunderstood
                        by
                        > > those who feel Christ forgives all their sins. Steiner puts it something
                        > > like this. Whatever we do here in the physical world affects karma, both
                        > our
                        > > individual karma and earth karma.
                        > >
                        > > The idea is that, before we do something, the conditions are different
                        > than
                        > > after and these after-conditions exist in objective ways that rectifying
                        > our
                        > > individual karma cannot possibly ever change. In other words, the act
                        > would
                        > > remain as a lasting effect on earth evolution unless there was some
                        > > interception. These acts are not visible to all who view the Akashic
                        > Script
                        > > because they have not embraced the Christ being. Once we take in Christ,
                        > we
                        > > see that he has taken on these acts for us. Through the process of "Not
                        I,
                        > > but the Christ in me.", Christ takes these burdens off of our souls for,
                        > if
                        > > they remained, we would not be able to evolve.
                        > >
                        > > Those who feel that Christ forgives all their sins are under the
                        influence
                        > > of Lucifer and, while they may be able to progress spiritually as what
                        > > Steiner refers to as "species-humans", they become stuck
                        materialistically
                        > > in earth stage of evolution.
                        > >
                        > > I think most of the above is also below.
                        > >
                        > > Bill
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: "LilOleMiss" <LilOleMiss@...>
                        > > To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 1:56 AM
                        > > Subject: [anthroposophy] Christ and the Akashic Record
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > Dear Listees,
                        > > >
                        > > > On 7/23/02 in message #4297, Margaret Cooper, writing as
                        > > > Sieglunda, spoke of how The Christ is able to remove certain
                        > > > "readings", I suppose they could be termed, from the Akashic
                        > > > Record. In response to her statements, Jeff Auen, on the same date
                        > > > in message #4299 requested a source for her information. As is
                        > > > usual when one reads Steiner a great deal, it often becomes
                        > > > impossible to recall exactly where what is, so I was asked to keep
                        > > > an eye out for this very important point. Sooner or later, we
                        > > > always seem to meet these things again at the most unexpected
                        > > > times, and so it was that tonight - uh - last night, now - I came
                        > > > across the passage referred to in Steiner's *Christ and the Human
                        > > > Soul*, Lecture 3 of 4, 12-16 July 1914 given at Norrkoping,
                        > > > Sweden. Because some of you may have difficulty acquiring this
                        > > > work, or for some other reason, I should like to include the
                        > > > relevent portion en toto as it was first published in my 1927
                        > > > edition. I would be deeply appreciated to have all my typos
                        > > > pointed out for correction. Fair warning to those who are already
                        > > > familiar with this work...:)
                        > > >
                        > > > CHRIST AND THE HUMAN SOUL
                        > > >
                        > > > by Rudolf Steiner
                        > > >
                        > > > Lecture 3
                        > > >
                        > > > One of the concepts which must rise up within us when we speak of
                        > > > the relations of Christ to the human soul is that of sin and its
                        > > > debt. We know what the significance of the concepts of guilt and
                        > > > sin have in the Christianity of St. Paul. Our present age is,
                        > > > however, little adapted for a really deep inner understanding of
                        > > > the wider connections between the concepts 'Death and Sin' and
                        > > > 'Death and Immortality,' that are to be found in Pau's writings.
                        > > > This lies in the materialism of our times. Let us recll what I
                        > > > said in the first lecture of this course, that there could be no
                        > > > true immortality of the human soul without a continuation of
                        > > > consciousness into the conditions after death. An ending of
                        > > > consciousness of man's being after death would mean that what is
                        > > > the most important of aoll, that which makes man into man, would
                        > > > not exist after death. An unconscious human soul surviving after
                        > > > death would nopt mean much more than the sum of atoms acknowledged
                        > > > by materialism, which remain even when the human body is
                        > > > destroyed.
                        > > > For Paul it was a matter of unshakable conviction that it is only
                        > > > possible to speak of immortality if the individual consciousness
                        > > > is maintained. And as he had to think of the individual
                        > > > consciousness as subject to sin and guilt it may be taken for
                        > > > granted that Paul would think: 'If a man's consciousness is
                        > > > obscured after death by sin and guilt, or by their results--if,
                        > > > after death, consciousness is disturbed by sin and guilt, this
                        > > > signifies that sin and guilt really kill man--they kill him as
                        > > > soul, as spirit.' The materialistic consciousness of our timeis
                        > > > far remote from this. Many modern philosophic investigators are
                        > > > content to speak of a continuance of the life of the human soul,
                        > > > whereas the immortality of man may only be identified with a
                        > > > conscious continuance of the human soul after death.
                        > > > A difficulty of course arises here, especially for the
                        > > > anthroposophical world conception. To be faced with this
                        > > > difficulty we need only direct our attention to the relationship
                        > > > of the concepts of 'Guilt and Sin' and of 'Karma.' Many people get
                        > > > over this by saying that they believe Karma to be a debt which a
                        > > > man contracts in any one of his incarnations; he bears this debt
                        > > > with him, with his Karma, and discharges it later; thus, in the
                        > > > course of incarnations, a compensation is brought about. Here
                        > > > begins the difficulty. These people then say: 'How can this be
                        > > > reconcilable with the Christian acceptation of the conception of
                        > > > the forgiveness of sins through Christ?' And yet again the idea of
                        > > > the forgiveness of sins is intimately bound up with true
                        > > > Christianity. It is only necessary to think of this one example:
                        > > > Christ on the Cross between two malefactors. The malefactor on the
                        > > > left hand mocks at Christ: 'If Thou wilt be Divine, help Thyself
                        > > > and us!' The malefactor on the right held that the other ought not
                        > > > to speak thus, for both had merited their fate of crucifixion--the
                        > > > just award of their deeds; whereas He was innocent, and had yet to
                        > > > experience the same fate. The malefactor on the right added to
                        > > > this: 'Think of me when Thou art in Thy Kingdom." And Christ
                        > > > answered him: 'Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with
                        > > > Me in Paradise.' It is not permissible merely to gainsay these
                        > > > words and omit them from the Gospel, for they are very
                        > > > significant. The difficulty arises from the question: If this
                        > > > malefactor on the right has to wash away what he has brought about
                        > > > in his Karma, what does it mean when Christ, as it were, pardoning
                        > > > and forgiving him, says: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in
                        > > > Paradise'? It may appear that the malefactor on the right will
                        > > > have to wash away his debt with his Karma, even as the one on the
                        > > > left. Why is there a difference made by Christ between the
                        > > > malefactor on the right and the one on the left? There is no doubt
                        > > > at all that the conception of Karma is here met by a difficulty
                        > > > that is not easy to solve. It is solved however when we try to
                        > > > probe more deeply into Christianity by means of Spiritual Science.
                        > > > And now I shall approach the subject from quit another side, the
                        > > > nature of which is already known to you, but which can bring
                        > > > certain remarkable circumstances to light.
                        > > > You know how often we speak of Lucifer and Ahriman, and how
                        > > > Lucifer and Ahriman are represented in my Mystery Plays. When one
                        > > > begins to consider the thing in a human-anthropomorphic sense and
                        > > > simply makes of Lucifer a kind of inner and of Ahriman a kind of
                        > > > outer criminal, there will be difficulty in getting on; for we
                        > > > must not forget that Lucifer, besides being the bringer of evil
                        > > > into the world, the inner evil that arises through the passions,
                        > > > is also the bringer of freedom; Lucifer plays an important role in
                        > > > the universe. In the same way it must be said of Ahriman that he,
                        > > > too, plays an important part in the universe. When we began to
                        > > > speak more of Lucifer and Ahriman, it was our experience that many
                        > > > of those who were associated with us became uneasy; they still had
                        > > > a feeling left of what people have always thought of Lucifer,
                        > > > namely, that he is a fearful criminal in the world, against whom
                        > > > one must defend oneself. Feeling this about Lucifer they could not
                        > > > of course give unqualified assent to a different conception
                        > > > because they must assign to Lucifer an important role in the
                        > > > universe, and yet again Lucifer must be regarded as an opponent of
                        > > > progressive Gods, as a being who crosses the plan of those Gods to
                        > > > whom honour is rightly due. Thus, when we speak of Lucifer in this
                        > > > way, we are in effect ascribing an important role in the universe
                        > > > to an enemy of the Gods. And we must do the same in the case of
                        > > > Ahriman. From this point of view it it quite easy to understand
                        > > > the human feeling that asks: 'What is the right attitude to adopt
                        > > > towards Lucifer and Ahriman; am I to love them or hate them?' It
                        > > > should be quite clear from the way in which one speaks of Lucifer
                        > > > and Ahriman that they are beings who, by their whole nature do not
                        > > > belong to the physical plane, but have their mission and task in
                        > > > the Cosmos outside the physical plane, in the spiritual worlds. In
                        > > > the Munich lectures of the summer of 1913, [The Secrets of the
                        > > > Threshold. sp] I laid particular emphasis on th fact that the
                        > > > progressive Gods have assigned to Lucifer and Ahriman roles in the
                        > > > spiritual worlds; and that discrepancy and disharmony only appear
                        > > > when they bring down their activities into the physical plane, and
                        > > > arrogate to themselves rights which are not allotted to them. But
                        > > > we must submit to one thing, to which the human soul does not
                        > > > readily submit when these matters are under consdieration, and it
                        > > > is this: that our judgment, our human judgment, as we pass it,
                        > > > holds good only for the physical plane, and that this judgment,
                        > > > right as it may be for the physical plane, cannot be simply
                        > > > transferred to the higher worlds. We must therefore gradually
                        > > > accustom ourselves in Anthroposophy to widen out our judgments and
                        > > > our world of concepts and ideas. It is because
                        > > > materialistically-minded men of the present day do not want to
                        > > > widen their judgment, but prefer to hold to that which holds good
                        > > > for the physical plane that they have such difficulty in
                        > > > understandint Anthroposophy, although it is all perfectly
                        > > > intelligible.
                        > > > If we say: 'one power is hostile to another,' or 'hostility is
                        > > > unseemly,' it is quite correct from the physical plane. But the
                        > > > same thing does not hold good for the higher planes. On the higher
                        > > > planes the judgment must be widened. Just as in the realm of
                        > > > electricity positive and negative electricity are necessary, so
                        > > > also is spiritual opposition necessary in order that the universe
                        > > > may exist in its entirety; it is necessary that the spirits should
                        > > > oppose one another. Here comes in the truth of the saying of
                        > > > Herakleitos, that strife as well as love constitutes the universe.
                        > > > It is only when Lucifer works upon the human soul, and when
                        > > > through the human soul strife is brought into the physical world,
                        > > > that strife is wrong. But this does not hold good for the higher
                        > > > worlds; there the hostility of the spirits is an element that
                        > > > belongs to the whole structure, to the whole evolution of the
                        > > > universe. This implies that as soon as we come into the higher
                        > > > worlds, we must employ other standards, other colourings for our
                        > > > judgments. That is why there is often a feeling of shock when we
                        > > > speak of Lucifer and Ahriman on the one side as the opponents of
                        > > > the Gods, and on the other side as being necessary to the whole
                        > > > course of the universal order. Hence we must, above all things,
                        > > > hold firmly in our minds that a man comes into collision with the
                        > > > universal order if he allows the judgment which holds good for the
                        > > > physical plane to hold good for the higher worlds.
                        > > > This is the root of the whole matter and it must again and again
                        > > > be emphasised that Christ, as Christ, does not belong to the order
                        > > > of the other entities of the physical plane. From the moment of
                        > > > the baptism in Jordan, a Being Who had not previously existed on
                        > > > Earth, a Being Who does not belong to the order of earth-beings,
                        > > > entered into the corporal being of Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in
                        > > > Christ, we are concerned with a Being Who could truly say to the
                        > > > disciples: 'I am from above, but ye are from below,' that is to
                        > > > say: 'I am a Being of the kingdom of heaven, ye are of the kingdom
                        > > > of earth.' Now let us consider the consequences of this. Must
                        > > > earthly judgment that is entirely justifiable as such, and that
                        > > > everyone on earth must maintain, be also the judgment of that
                        > > > Cosmic Being Who, as Christ, entered the Jesus body? That Being,
                        > > > Who entered the body of Jesus at the baptism in Jordan, applies
                        > > > not an earthly but a heavenly judgment. He must judge differently
                        > > > from ean.
                        > > > And now let us consider the whole import of the words spoken on
                        > > > Golgotha. The malefactor on the left believes that in the Christ
                        > > > merely an earthly being is present, not a being whose realm is
                        > > > beyond the earthly kingdom. But just before death there comes to
                        > > > the consciousness of the malefactor on the right, 'Thy kingdom, O
                        > > > Christ, is another; think of me when Thou art in Thy kingdom.' At
                        > > > this moment the malefactor on the right shows that he has a dim
                        > > > idea of the fact that Christ belongs to another kingdom, where a
                        > > > power of judgment other than that obtaining on the earth, holds
                        > > > sway. Then, out of the consciousness that He stands in His
                        > > > kingdom, Christ can answer: 'Verily, because thou hast some dim
                        > > > foreboding of my kingdom, this day (that is with death) thou shalt
                        > > > be with Me in My kingdom.' This is a reference to the
                        > > > super-earthly Christ power that draws up the human invididuality
                        > > > innto a spiritual kingdom. Earthly judgment, human judgment, must
                        > > > of course say: 'As regards his Karma, the righ-hand malefactor
                        > > > will have to make compensation for his guilt even as the one on
                        > > > the left,' for the heavenly judgment, however, something else
                        > > > holds good. But that is only the beginning of the matter, for of
                        > > > course it might now be said: 'Yes, then the judgment of heaven
                        > > > contradicts that of the earth. How can Christ forgive where the
                        > > > earthly judgment demands karmic retribution?'
                        > > > It is a difficult question, but we will try to approach it more
                        > > > closely in the course of this lecture. I lay special emphasis on
                        > > > the fact that we are touching here on one of the most difficult
                        > > > questions of Spiritual Science. We must make a difference which
                        > > > the human soul does not willingly make, because it does not like
                        > > > following the thing to its ultimate consequences; there are
                        > > > difficulties in following it up to its ultimate consequeces. We
                        > > > shall find it, as I have said, a difficult subject, and you will
                        > > > perhaps find it necessary to turn the thing over in your souls
                        > > > many times in order to get at its real essence.
                        > > > Firstly, we must make a distinction. We must consider the one
                        > > > element that fulfils itself in Karma in an objective retribution.
                        > > > Here we must clearly understand that man is certainly subject to
                        > > > his Karma; that he has tomake karmic compensation for unjust
                        > > > deeds, and when we think more deeply about it, a man will not
                        > > > actually wish otherwise. For suppose that a man has done another
                        > > > person wrong; in the moment of this wrong he is less perfect than
                        > > > before he had done it, and he can only attain the grade of
                        > > > perfection which was his before he committed the wrong by making
                        > > > compensation for it. He must wish to make compensation for the
                        > > > wrong; for only in such compensation does he create for himself
                        > > > the stage of perfection which was his before the act was
                        > > > committed. Thus, for the sake of our own perfecting we can wish
                        > > > nothing else than that Karma is there as objective justice. When
                        > > > we grasp the true meaning of human freedom, we can have no wish
                        > > > that a sin should be so forgiven us; that is, for example, we were
                        > > > to put a man's eyes out, the sin would be so forgiven us that we
                        > > > should no longer need to wipe it away in our Karma. A man who puts
                        > > > out the eyes of another is more imperfect than one who does not,
                        > > > and in his later Karma it must come to pass that he does a
                        > > > corresponding good act, for then only is he again the man that he
                        > > > was before he committed the act. So that when we rightly consider
                        > > > the nature of man, there can be no thought within us that when a
                        > > > man has put out the eyes of another it will be forgiven him, and
                        > > > that Karma will be in some way adjusted. It is fully justified in
                        > > > Karma that we are not excused a farthing, but that the debt must
                        > > > be paid to the uttermost.
                        > > > But there is another element with regard to the guilt. The guilt,
                        > > > the sin with which we are laden, is not merely our own affair, it
                        > > > is an objective cosmic concern, it means something for the
                        > > > universe also. This is where the distinction must be made. The
                        > > > crimes that we have committed are compensated in our Karma, but
                        > > > the act of putting out another's eyes is an accomplished fact; if
                        > > > we have, let us say, put someone's eyes out in the present
                        > > > incarnation, and then in the next incarnation do something that
                        > > > makes compensation for this act, yet for the objective course of
                        > > > the universe the fact still remains that so many hundred years ago
                        > > > we put someone's eyes out. That is an objective fact in the
                        > > > universe. So far as we are concerned we make compensation for it
                        > > > later. the guilt that we have personally contracted is adjusted in
                        > > > our Karma, but the objective cosmic fact remains--we cannot efface
                        > > > that by removing our own imperfection. We must discriminate
                        > > > between the consequences of a sin for ourselves, and the
                        > > > consequences of a sin for the objective course of the world. It is
                        > > > highly important that we should make this distinction. And I may
                        > > > now perhaps intruduce an occult observation which will make this
                        > > > matter clearer.
                        > > > When a man surveys the course of human evolution since the
                        > > > Mystery of Golgotha and approaches the Akashic Record without
                        > > > being permeated with the Christ-Being, it is easy, very easy
                        > > > indeed to be led into error, for in this he will find records
                        > > > which very often do not coincide with the karmic evolution of the
                        > > > individuals. For example, let us suppose that is, say the year
                        > > > 733, some man lived and incurred heavy guilt. The person now
                        > > > examining the Akashic Record, may at first have no connection with
                        > > > the Christ-Being. And behold ! the man's guilt cannot be found in
                        > > > the Akashic Record. Examination of the Karma in a later
                        > > > incarnation of this man reveals that there is something still in
                        > > > his Karma which he has to wipe out. That must have existed in the
                        > > > Akashic Record at a certain point of time, but it is not there.
                        > > > Examination of the Karma reveals that the man has to make amends;
                        > > > the guilt of the incarnation must have been inscribed in the
                        > > > Akashic Record, but it is not there. Here is a contradiction. This
                        > > > is an objective fact which may occur in numerous cases. I may meet
                        > > > with a man today, and if through grace I am permitted to know
                        > > > something about his Karma, I may perhaps find that some
                        > > > misfortune, or stroke of fate stands in his Karma,that it is the
                        > > > admustment of earlier guilt. If I turn to his earlier incarnations
                        > > > and examoine what he did then, I do not find this fact registered
                        > > > in the Akashic Record. How does this come about?
                        > > > The reason of this is that Christ has actually taken upon Himself
                        > > > the objective debt. In the moment that I permeate myself with
                        > > > Christ, I discover the deed when I examine the Akashic Record with
                        > > > Christ, Christ has taken it into His kingdom, and He bears it
                        > > > further, so that when I look away from Christ I cannot find it in
                        > > > the Akashic Record. This distinction must be observed: karmic
                        > > > justice remains; but Christ intervenes in the effects of guilt in
                        > > > the spiritual world. He takes over the debt into His kingdom, and
                        > > > bears it further. Christ is that Being Who, because He is of
                        > > > another kingdom, is able to blot out in the Cosmos our debts and
                        > > > our guilt, taking them upon Himself.
                        > > > What is it that the Christ on the Cross of Golgotha really
                        > > > conveys to the malefactor on the left? He does not utter it, but
                        > > > in the fact that He does not utter it lies the essence. He says to
                        > > > the malefactor on the left: 'What thou hast done will continue to
                        > > > work in the spiritual world also and not merely in the physical
                        > > > world.' To the malefactor on the right He says: 'Today shalt thou
                        > > > be with Me in Paradise.' That is to say: 'I am beside thine act;
                        > > > through thy Karma thou wilt have later on to do for thyself all
                        > > > that the act signifies for thee, but what the act sifnifies for
                        > > > the universe,' if I may use a trivial expression, 'that is My
                        > > > concern.' This is what Christ says. The distinction made here is a
                        > > > very important one, and the matter is not only of significance for
                        > > > the time after the Mystery of Golgotha, but also for the time
                        > > > before the Mystery of Golgotha............
                        > > > [Sorry to have to end here. sp]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > 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/
                        >
                        >


                        ---
                        Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
                        Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
                        Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 8/2/2002
                      • utopia_planetia_2000
                        Recent research pertaining to our discussion of space, time and speed, by Austrialian scientists. Indeed, if the speed of light did vary through time, it could
                        Message 11 of 15 , Aug 10, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Recent research pertaining to our discussion of space, time and
                          speed, by Austrialian scientists.

                          Indeed, if the speed of light did vary through time, it could explain
                          a lot and give some foundation to what we've been saying about time
                          not flowing at the same rate in the past as today.

                          Can our perception of life depend of the quality of light that we
                          aborb and emit? Like a prism, I'm pretty convinced that our universe,
                          depending on the region of space and planet filters the unique light
                          to a "wavelength" befitting a particular evolutionary pattern. I know
                          we know all that with Steiner's lecture, however, this new research
                          make it more tangible.

                          http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
                          tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020807/sc_nm/science_light_dc_1

                          Marc


                          --- In anthroposophy@y..., "utopia_planetia_2000"
                          <utopia_planetia@h...> wrote:
                          > Given the assumption that space and time are relative, so is karma.
                          > The forces behind karma are guilt, anger and pain among others.
                          >
                          > If we change our perceptions, these feelings can be rendered
                          > inconsistant. The idea of forgiveness cannot exist without
                          judgement;
                          > if we "relativize" our experience to transcend anger for example,
                          > there is no need for forgiveness since there was no offense in the
                          > first place. I think compassion is the key. A state in which we
                          view
                          > the world without wanting to change it according to the view of the
                          > limited ego. "Not I, but Christ in me".
                          >
                          > In the world in which we live, we only have a certain freedom
                          within
                          > the first three dimensions. The fourth, identified as time, we are
                          > totally subject to it. The fourth chakra, Anahata chakra, the heart
                          > chakra, is where some say a higher understanding of Christ begins.
                          A
                          > vision of compassion that transcends time. A fifth dimension where
                          > the heart moves the body (will) and mind into a higher frequency,
                          > preparing for the Jupiter state. A matter of harmony between heart,
                          > will and mind.
                          >
                          > Just some ideas.
                          >
                          > I don't know the expression forgiving 70 X 7!
                          >
                          > Marc
                          >
                          > --- In anthroposophy@y..., "elaineupton2001" <elaineupton@h...>
                          wrote:
                          > > Hello list, and thanks to Sheila for quoting the long fine
                          passage
                          > > from Steiner, and to Starman, Bill, Marc, Bradford (any others)
                          for
                          > > your fine replies on the nature of time, on the limitations of
                          > > Einstein and Oppenheimer (especially as we now remember Hiroshima
                          > and
                          > > Nagasaki), and on matter and love. Particularly useful to me now
                          is
                          > > the distinction between Christened and non-Christened seeing in
                          the
                          > > Akashic Record, and on the deeper meaning of the two who hung
                          > beside
                          > > the Christ on the Cross, and the whole question and distinction
                          of
                          > > forgiveness (Christ taking on our deeds in the objective spirit
                          > > world) and karma (our responsibility for our deeds on the Earthly
                          > > plane).
                          > >
                          > > On the matter of forgiveness, I have a question. What is meant by
                          > > saying you shal forgive "seventy times seven"? Moreover, what is
                          > > meant by calling for the act of human forgiveness, that which
                          takes
                          > > place between one human and another? Where does this come into
                          the
                          > > whole picture of karma on the one hand, and the Christ deed of
                          > taking
                          > > on our sin and its consequences in the spirit world?
                          > >
                          > > For example: if someone wrongs me, and later that person asks me
                          > for
                          > > forgiveness, what would it mean for me to forgive that person? Is
                          > > that person thus released from his or her karma? Or, as one
                          > forgiving
                          > > am I taking on a Christ-like role, to a degree, at least, as in
                          > > an "imitation of Christ", somehow taking on that person's deed on
                          a
                          > > higher level? If so, what maturity and spiritual development is
                          > > required of me to be able to dispense that level of
                          > responsibility?!!
                          > >
                          > > Also, in this vein of earthly retribution and the question of
                          > > forgiveness (and of the related reconciliation), I think of such
                          as
                          > > the apparently great events that took place during recent years
                          in
                          > > South Africa. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the NObel Peace Laureate,
                          is
                          > > famous by now for his way of what he calls "restorative justice"
                          > (as
                          > > differing from "retributive justice"). In the work of the post-
                          > > apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the new Republic
                          > of
                          > > South Africa (a commission led by the Archbishop), wrongdoers
                          > (doers
                          > > of heinous crimes, as well as others) were called before the
                          > > commission and asked to own up to what they did, to express
                          > > themselves publicly and particularly in view of the families of
                          > those
                          > > they had wronged. When this was done, there was no going to jail,
                          > no
                          > > retribution, but instead, amnesty, and it is said there was a
                          > feeling
                          > > of healing and cleansing, just through the confession and the
                          > > publicness of it all. The humility required to confess in public,
                          > to
                          > > own up to one's sins, was considered to be enough, by,
                          apparently,
                          > > black and white, wrongdoers and ones harmed by the wrongdoing.--
                          My
                          > > question, then, is whether there is some Christ-presence in this
                          > > whole process of confession and "reparative" (not "retributive")
                          > > justice. Is there? Is this an example of human beings, whether
                          they
                          > > are conscious of anthroposophy or not, taking on a higher Christ-
                          > like
                          > > calling?
                          > >
                          > > "Love your enemy." "Bless them that curse you." --Forgive not
                          just
                          > > once or seven times, but "seventy times seven". What are we being
                          > > called to?
                          > >
                          > > I'll appreciate hearing from those who are moved.
                          > >
                          > > Blessings,
                          > > elaine
                        • elaineupton2001
                          My dear Sheila, Thank you, thank you, for your heartful and thoughtful replies. What you say is far from inadequate and your post certainly sets me on the
                          Message 12 of 15 , Aug 12, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            My dear Sheila,

                            Thank you, thank you, for your heartful and thoughtful replies. What
                            you say is far from inadequate and your post certainly sets me on the
                            track of more thinking, feeling, exploration and meditation unto
                            Christened deeds in this whole realm of forgiveness between one human
                            and another and the deeper recognition that karma for each of us is
                            irrevocable, yet redemption, as you say, is possible.

                            What you say about 7 and 70X7 is also an opening, leading me to look
                            further. Lately I have been meditating and praying upon several
                            pending decisions in my life, and sometimes i ask a question (of the
                            higher Self and of Sophia or the being of Anthropo-Sophia) for three
                            nights, but 7 and multiples of 7 feels more right! So, let me reach
                            beyond my impatience and desire for quick answers!

                            Goethe, I believe, though I can't say for sure, said something about
                            his writing and not publishing something for seven years after he had
                            written it. In these days of internet, jet travel and generally
                            speeded up incarnations, etc. I wonder what has happened to our
                            rhythms of seven....

                            Sheila, again, thank you for your presence!
                            elaine
                          • Lil Ole Miss
                            Dear Elaine, No thanks are due to me, Dear Friend - all I am is a floundering vehicle through which, hopefully, something helping others might sometimes be
                            Message 13 of 15 , Aug 12, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Elaine,

                              No thanks are due to me, Dear Friend - all I am is a floundering
                              vehicle through which, hopefully, something helping others might
                              sometimes be able to flow. Didn't Goethe wait 49 - 50 years
                              in-between certain parts of his "Faust?" It seems to me he may
                              have sensed what any of us can sense: "Not I, but The Christ
                              within me."

                              Blessings always,

                              Sheila

                              elaineupton2001 wrote:
                              >
                              > My dear Sheila,
                              >
                              > Thank you, thank you, for your heartful and thoughtful replies. What
                              > you say is far from inadequate and your post certainly sets me on the
                              > track of more thinking, feeling, exploration and meditation unto
                              > Christened deeds in this whole realm of forgiveness between one human
                              > and another and the deeper recognition that karma for each of us is
                              > irrevocable, yet redemption, as you say, is possible.
                              >
                              > What you say about 7 and 70X7 is also an opening, leading me to look
                              > further. Lately I have been meditating and praying upon several
                              > pending decisions in my life, and sometimes i ask a question (of the
                              > higher Self and of Sophia or the being of Anthropo-Sophia) for three
                              > nights, but 7 and multiples of 7 feels more right! So, let me reach
                              > beyond my impatience and desire for quick answers!
                              >
                              > Goethe, I believe, though I can't say for sure, said something about
                              > his writing and not publishing something for seven years after he had
                              > written it. In these days of internet, jet travel and generally
                              > speeded up incarnations, etc. I wonder what has happened to our
                              > rhythms of seven....
                              >
                              > Sheila, again, thank you for your presence!
                              > elaine
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.