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

Re: [anthroposophy] Geology, Evolution, Lemuria & Atlantis

Expand Messages
  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
    ... with that of modern science? I m thinking particularly of geology and the fossil record? What of the dinosaurs? (1)******* The facts that science has
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >  utopia_planetia@... writes:
      > > > 2/ How are we to reconcile the anthroposophical view of world evolution with that of modern science? I'm thinking particularly of geology and the fossil record? What of the dinosaurs?

      (1)******* The facts that science has discovered, we can reconcile with spiritual science; not so the Religion of Scientism with its dogmas. Unfortunately the so-called scientists of today demand their theories be equated with facts.
         To separate the wheat from the chaff a bit, what we know of the world goes back only a few thousand years. All ancient calendars, like the Chinese or Hebrew, go back less than seven or eight thousand years. The oldest scriptures speak of a previous 'world' or civilization destroyed in a great world-catastrophe. Now, that was the mindframe in which modern science developed. Until 1700 or so (the "Enlightenment"), no one knew of or believed in anything being more than 10,000 years old. Then, in the course of digging canals in England, the first skeletons of giant unknown animals were unearthed, and around the same time the first theories of anything like modern geology began. First, formations were examined and it was realized that they must have taken thousands of years to take their present shape; and the destruction of these  'dinosaur' creatures was interpreted as supporting evidence for those legendary world-catastrophes.
         In the nineteenth century, however, the 'uniformitarian' point of view of Lyell came about in geology, that everything in the past was caused by the same processees as are going on around us now, and at the same rate. It fit in with the conservative Victorian outlook, and Darwin took it as his basis for a theory where all change is slow and gradual. This very slow change of living things required incredibly long periods of time, however, with one organ changing and then another, slowly building up to a whole new organism. Only then did 'millions' and then 'hundreds of millions' and then finally 'billions' of years come to be in the picture.
         Unfortunately emotions immediately come into it when Darwinism is discussed, because so many people have an emotional investment in it as a sort of Religion produced by the Enlightenment. Actually, its basis of slow, gradual change has since been thrown out in favor of sudden mutations, but oddly the ideas which were accepted ON that basis remain.
         It's also unfortunate that only child-like fundamentalists usually look at the abundant evidence that the earth may be far younger than these theories built up from Lyell & Darwin demand, and that, in the rush to put together a completely worked-out theory to compete with the religions that science believed were irrational superstitions holding Man back, many errors were made of interpretation of the geological facts.
         But the facts supplied by the Akashic Records are not in conflict with the evidence, only the interpretations of it. And principal among these is the interpretation that, as human fossils are found only recently, Man evolved from the animal. We know that Man was there spiritually as the animals became material, and that he only entered physical form last. And, in fact, far from the apes creating Man, the first imperfect physical forms intended for human souls DEVOLVED into the apes.


      (2)
        ******* The great difference between materialist science and what the Akashic
      Records reveal is based on the wholly different outlook of intellectual materialists and anyone who can develop the ability to see spirit. The so-called "science" of today says basically, "Well, there's nothing but matter, so the rocks were there first. The mineral earth was first there, then out of the unliving somehow arose the living (a bolt of lightning struck chemicals in the sea, maybe), and then there were simple plants, and then animals somehow came from them and then humans from animals." Since this is what material fossil remains show, they regard this as 'proven' and demand it be programmed by the government into every child's mind. The materialistic biases underlying this are not examined.

         But from the records we find this. There is no time you did not exist. There is no start to the human spirit when the body begins. The spirits of we human beings have always been. (In fact everything has always been, and merely changes form and consciousness. The universe does not actually have a beginning in Time---but that's another story for another day...)
         
            What now composes all the earth---all we human beings and all its other beings--- has only changed form. To say man didn't exist before we find fossils of him is like saying an actor didn't exist before he put on Hamlet's outfit and stepped on stage. We have taken this role and this form, but we existed before. In fact, in the start of what we call our world all of it was within us---we were like the space baby at the end of '2001', in a way: a great living spiritual being of consciousness, immaterial. All of what are now human beings, animals, plants and minerals were all one gigantic spherical energy-form. Then, just as salt can precipitate out of salty water in a jar, the now-physical kingdoms of Nature precipitated out of this fire-form.

           First the energy forms of the higher animals separated out from this mass which we felt as our Being. So one re-experiencing this feels as if the mammals and birds, etc., are like slumbering human beings in a trance-like state, that then drop out and become the strange non-human fixed animal spirits they are now physically. They 'devolve' from being like us to animal forms in the astral world (as nothing is yet physical). This warmth-sphere slowly cools, and as it does these animal energy-forms condense to become denser than only warmth. We remain only fiery beings longer. Then a second group of our 'brother humans' drops out, cannot remain only Fiery as we can. These become still other animal energy forms, with an affinity for the developing fluid state where the earlier had for the Airy. These are the 7 phyla of animals that live mainly in the ocean, where the earlier are the 5 higher phyla (see Eugen Kolisko's work on the 12 Types of Animals).

           The still-cooling warmth sphere is thus at first only ourselves, human beings, and out of this is "distilled" or precipitated all the animal beings. This is why they can be understood as partial human beings---the cow being the human digestive system magnified to extremes, the birds the nervous system... and why the forms of life in the ocean look like floating heads, as we do as embryos again (i.e., the coelenterates). What Man has combined all together and harmonized within him the various animals all have in some one-sided way.

         Still later other parts of this unitary spiritual being we felt to be ourselves like the 2001 Starbaby, separate off and become the plant and still later the mineral kingdoms.

         You can see from this the vast gulf between what can be known from the Records and our materialist science of today with its evolution theory. The Earth as a giant Man, in effect, which condensed into all nature---this is found in the Norse myth of the Primal Giant Ymir, but not in your evolution textbook, nor is it likely to be there any time soon! Even the idea that animals can be understood via Man, will be denounced as superstitious anthropomorphism. It really requires nothing less than a complete reversal of materialism, since, far from the sequence being lifeless mineral, and out of that plant then animal then Man, the TRUE sequence is first Man (containing within us then all of Nature), then Animal, then Plant, then Mineral.

      More if there's still interest.

      -Dr. Starman




      ashley.case@... writes:

      yes, please continue...


      *******Well, now you see what the Akashic Records reveal, that we were part of a unified body containing all the present Kingdoms of Nature on Earth, and the other kingdoms in a sense evolved out of US, dropped away from this "unitary body" into physicality that had only a one-sided aspect of it, while we human beings retain all the various parts of Nature in a harmonious whole (a very Renaissance-like conception, which Goethe also held). The animals, plants and minerals were all one with we human beings and the former slowly separated off; we were the last to come into physical incarnation.

          Now, the history of this evolution is divided into 7 great periods. Blavatsky, who had this information channelled through her by the White Brotherhood and afterward recalled all they'd said through her (though not perfectly, by any means--- especially in her embittered later years), gave these the name of "Root Races" which Steiner (and the Edgar Cayce Readings) continued to use. The first two were before we human beings had any kind of physical embodiment that material study could find a trace of, and were called the Polarian and Hyperborean Root Races.  The best written description is in Steiner's "Cosmic Memory", and he gave many details in his early lectures. Unfortunately in that book he says, about the exact time-sequence of the events described,  "Dates will be given later"---but so far as I've been able to find very little with these definite dates he ever gave out, or at least which has been published in English.
      So the picture is sketchy; but I'll describe what I've worked out for myself.

           He states that it was in the Third Root Race, the Lemurian, that we human beings first entered physical form. During this great period, the Earth itself only condensed into its present denser physicality, and it did so by separating from the Moon! Until the Lemurian time, what now is the substance of the Moon was WITHIN the Earth in an unsolid form, and it was then split off from the earth, and later hardened into what we see now as the Moon. Steiner describes in "Cosmic Memory" that this separation of Earth and Moon happened almost simultaneously with the division of we human beings into two sexes in our still-malleable bodies. Before that we were unsolid, spherical beings hovering about the periphery of the earth, with what are now both sexes combined into one (as Plato has Aristophanes also describe in the Phaedrus). But he says parts of the earth had densified enough for some animals which had entered incarnation sooner to be already living in physical form with senses and double-sexedness, and these are described as being like the present "reptiles"--- so apparently the dinosaurs were meant. I have seen only a few things by Steiner's followers attempting to correlate the Root Races to the hypothetical "Ice Ages", dinosaur times, etc. But the problem is a gigantic one: if Steiner is correct, all our present understanding of geologic time must be challenged. Here's why.

          Each Root Race proceeds in cycles of seven, so the Lemurian Age had seven sub-races. This Root Race was followed by the Atlantean, which also had 7 sub-races, and then by our own Fifth Root Race, the Post-Atlantean or Aryan. In our time a 'sub-race' lasts one Zodiac Age of about 2,160 years. Steiner calls these the "Cultural Periods": the Ancient Indian was the Age of Cancer (he stated that the Flood ocurred when the Vernal Equinox entered Cancer), then the Persian was the Age of Gemini, the Egyptian the Age of Taurus, the Graeco-Roman the Age of Aries and we are now in the 5th or Piscean Age, or in other words the fifth sub-cycle of the Fifth Root Race. This gives a total of anbout 11,000 years since the end of Atlantis (agreeing with Plato). But Steiner described the 7 sub-races of the Atlantean as also being one Zodiac Age long, which means the Atlantean Age lasted about 15,000 years before that. This puts the end of the Lemurian Age at about 26,000 years ago. Steiner said (in "Ancient Myths", Lecture # 7,  13 Jan. 1918: "about 25-26,000 yrs ago the Lemurian age came to an end...... 12 epochs ago, the sun was in the same position" then in the 7th epoch of the Lemurian age as it is now, in Pisces.

          The Lemurian continent perished in a fiery volcanic catastrophe about 26,000 years ago, then, and became the Paciifc Ocean. Now, our present geological theories say the Pacific Ocean has been as it is for millions of years. So what geology says about the great age of strata, being millions upon millions of years old, must be wrong. There are great catastrophes, like the Flood that destroyed Atlantis, that cause things to happen MUCH faster than 'Uniformitarian' geology thinks. If the end of Lemuria was about 24,000 B.C., moreover, remember Steiner is describing the Moon and the Earth being still united in the MIDDLE of the Lemurian Root Race, and we human beings being completely unsolid till then. How much earlier was that? Well, the Moon separated from the earth, Steiner said, in a zodiacal age of SCORPIO, about in the middle of the Lemurian Root Race. There was more than one such age during Lemurian times; he said it was AN Age of Scorpio, not necessarily the one there was about 16,000 years before its end. The sub race cycles might not have been zodiac ages or those ages might have been longer than 2,160 years in those times. But if the end of Lemuria was about 26,000 years ago, that's tantamount to saying Jurassic-era fossils might only be about 40,000 years old, not 65 MILLION. That places anthroposophists in the
      same boat as the Young Earth Creationists in disputing the assumptions by which the "millions and millions of years old" dates were cooked up in the last 120 years. If the Moon and Earth separated anywhere near the end of Lemuria, that means Earth only became completely solid 40,000-50,000 years
      ago, and all human skeletons are likewise no older, since earlier man had no bones.

          There is only one conclusion we can reach: that science has mistaken the age of geological strata and fossil remains by a factor of a hundred or more. This is also pointed to in the Edgar Cayce Readings where he appears to mention dinosaurs existing 50 THOUSAND (not million) years ago.  Steiner seems to imply that the Jurassic Age was only thousands of years ago, not millions. The entire geological column with its deduced times is thus being called into question by anthroposophy. When I look at my fossil trilobites I have here, I am looking at fossils nowhere near the '200+ million years old' age assigned them by our geology today. In fact there is a famous footprint called the Meister print, which is a sandal imprint in beach sand, where whoever put their foot down squashed a trilobite when he did so.When it comes to human fossils, Michael Cremo in his recent work "Forbidden Archaeology" does an excellent job of showing how the evidence of fully-developed human skeletons coexisting with the 'ape-men' ones which have been found, has been systematically ignored or misinterpreted in order to build up a scheme that physical anthropology had imposed on it by evolution theory. The reality must be that any human being dense enough to leave a bone is not very old at all. There is, in fact, an abundance of evidence suggesting that the earth may be quite young, but as the only people willing to look at it for generations have been Christians, it's been ignored.

          The theory of evolution, and the geology linked to it, is hoelessly flawed according to spiritual science and the evidence and conclusions drawn from it must be re-examined from top to bottom. As far as the Darwinian theory with its flaws, an excellent work by an anthroposophist on this was "Darwin Retried" by Norman Macbeth. I don't know if it's still in print. And as you can see, we anthropsophists have a lot of work to do to find the relation between what the Akashic Records show and the fossils that are everywhere being mis-dated and misinterpreted, and to uncover an "Ahrimanic deception" that is covering up the true understanding of all natural history.

      -Starman



    • SRC
      Dear Dr. Starman: All this is very interesting; it jibes with what I recall, and it s good to have it set forth in condensed form as you have done. A comment:
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 23, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Dr. Starman:

        All this is very interesting; it jibes with what I recall, and it's good
        to have it set forth in condensed form as you have done.

        A comment: all the radiocarbon dating methods are thrown into disarray if
        we do _not_ assume that the various physical constants are not really
        constant - ie: speed of light, gravitational constant, certain
        mathematical ratios, etc.

        Steiner says that this is so; that radioactivity is a very recent
        phenomenon.

        Perhaps we are at a cusp of some sort where the rate of change of these
        <constants> has only temporarily slowed to zero....

        A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
        post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times? There is a lot of controversy and
        head-scratching in academic circles, where they have too little data and
        too much bad theory to contend with. I am particularly interested in
        migrations in and out of the Americas . Do you have anything on this? I
        will post you and article off list by Dr. Pfeiffer where he goes into
        this, but I can't evalauate it.

        Best Regards,

        Stephen


        =====
        Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

        Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
        ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
        http://finance.yahoo.com
      • DRStarman2001@aol.com
        ... ******And they are not. In fact, no physical constant is actually a constant. The speed of light has been different each time it was measured: the figure
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 23, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          mozartg@... writes:
          > Dear Dr. Starman:
          > All this is very interesting; it jibes with what I recall, and it's good to have it set forth in condensed form as you have done.
          > A comment: all the radiocarbon dating methods are thrown into disarray if we do _not_ assume that the various physical constants are not really constant - ie: speed of light, gravitational constant, certain mathematical ratios, etc.

          ******And they are not. In fact, no physical constant is actually a constant. The speed of light has been different each time it was measured: the figure we have quoted to us is an average of all these, and excuses are made that it's the inexactness of the equipment, not simply that it varies. Ditto the "solar constant": it's not.
          Moreover, the blind faith in it assumes we now know all the forces in the universe after only 200 years of science. Wilhelm Reich's "orgone energy" was demonstrated to affect the rate of radioactive decay half a century ago in experiments science does not yet wish to look at.


          >
          > Steiner says that this is so; that radioactivity is a very recent phenomenon.

          *******I'm glad to hear that, as I have reached the same conclusion myself. As I see it, it's produced by matter being over-extended and sort of "collapsing in on itself" by having gone too far past an optimum point of organization---kind of like New York City. ;->
          And that density of matter is recent on earth.


          > Perhaps we are at a cusp of some sort where the rate of
          > change of these <constants> has only temporarily slowed to zero....

          *******And will rhythmically begin to accelerate again, yes.

          -starman
        • fireofthe12
          Just following up what Starman and Stephen have been talking about- constants not being constant. This has been hitting the news here: Speed of light maybe not
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 23, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Just following up what Starman and Stephen have been talking about-
            constants not being constant.

            This has been hitting the news here:
            Speed of light maybe not as constant as we thought.

            "A team of Australian scientists, led by Paul Davies is theorising
            that electromagnetic waves may not have a constant speed as is
            commonly accepted. Predictably, the lead of this wire article focuses
            on Einstein being wrong..."

            http://aca.mq.edu.au/

            Davies' paper, Black holes constrain varying constants, is published
            in the August 8 edition of leading science journal, Nature.

            http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,4864620%5e15400%5e%
            5enbv%5e,00.html

            According to Einstein, two observers in space, one flashing by, the
            other stationary, each armed with a torch, each measuring the speed
            of light, would still come up with the same result.

            "Now, we're not saying that's wrong," says Lineweaver."

            -Bruce
          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
            ... *******Yes, I read it and I m sure quite a lot of it is correct. South America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and then much
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 23, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              mozartg@... writes:

              A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
              post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?  There is a lot of controversy and
              head-scratching in academic circles, where they have too little data and
              too much bad theory to contend with.  I am particularly interested in
              migrations in and out of the Americas .  Do you have anything on this?  I
              will post you and article off list by Dr. Pfeiffer where he goes into
              this, but I can't evalauate it.


              *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct. South America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I could post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's interest, and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr. Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about races.

                 Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the Steinerbooks people published it for years.

              -starman
            • Vicki Sivess
              ... Yes please. I m interested. Vicki Sivess ... Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version:
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                At 09:58 PM 23/08/2002 -0400, you wrote:
                *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct. South America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I could post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's interest,

                Yes please. I'm interested.

                Vicki Sivess

              • SRC
                ... could ... I m game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet is a volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary without
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear DrSM:

                  --- DRStarman2001@... wrote:
                  > mozartg@... writes:
                  >
                  > > A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
                  > > post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?

                  > *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct. South
                  > America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and
                  > then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I
                  could
                  > post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's
                  > interest,
                  > and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr.
                  > Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about races.

                  I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet is a
                  volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary without
                  going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm all ears.

                  > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s manuscript "A
                  > Dweller
                  > On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the Thibetan" ,
                  > which
                  > describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his visits to
                  > N. and
                  > S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This
                  > manuscript is
                  > the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
                  > Steinerbooks people published it for years.

                  Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa drugstore
                  farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books also published Le
                  Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although his story is a remarkable
                  one and worthy of remembrance....

                  >


                  =====
                  Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                  Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                  ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                  In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                  http://finance.yahoo.com
                • jackstrange11
                  Dear Mozart, Starman, et al: Although I agree that the dating of modern science is extremely misleading and Ahrimanic, I am not sure whether the dates of
                  Message 8 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Mozart, Starman, et al:

                    Although I agree that the dating of modern science is extremely
                    misleading and Ahrimanic, I am not sure whether the dates of science
                    should be replaced by dates determined by spiritual research. I
                    think that the entire conception of "time line" is part of the
                    Ahrimanic science that we seek to augment. Whether an event ocurred 5
                    million years ago or 50 million years ago has no real direct link to
                    our consciousness .

                    I believe that RS generally avoided exact dating of events preceding
                    say 10,000 BC because of this conceptual problem and he constantly
                    maintained that events and eras and epochs permeated each other and
                    had no definite dividing lines.

                    Recent posts on this list have pointed out new information that the
                    speed of light may not be constant and that rates of radioactive
                    decay cannot be extrapolated backwards in time, therefore the
                    usefulness of the concept "year" as a measure of time is called into
                    question. I do believe that the order of the succession of events is
                    crucial in developing our imagination of the evolution of the world.
                    We can picture in our minds the growth and metamorphosis of a plant
                    without being concerned with the exact temporal measurement of each
                    stage. I think this is what RS was after in say Chap 4 of Occult
                    Science-it's the imagination and the sequence of imaginations that is
                    important, not any exact measurements in years which is the hallmark
                    of Baconian science.

                    Lastly, I believe that Steiner's higher cognition entered into a
                    realm where all these "events" were simultaneous. Once our
                    consciousness descends into temporality then we begin to assign
                    temporal values to the "past" happenings when in realty they are
                    holographically present in our present being. The greater our self
                    knowledge, the more independent do we become of the past and present.

                    Kenneth


                    --- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
                    > Dear DrSM:
                    >
                    > --- DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
                    > > mozartg@y... writes:
                    > >
                    > > > A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
                    > > > post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?
                    >
                    > > *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct.
                    South
                    > > America has a very old civilization that was refugees from
                    Lemuria, and
                    > > then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis.
                    I
                    > could
                    > > post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if
                    there's
                    > > interest,
                    > > and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr.
                    > > Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about
                    races.
                    >
                    > I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet
                    is a
                    > volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary
                    without
                    > going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm all ears.
                    >
                    > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
                    manuscript "A
                    > > Dweller
                    > > On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the
                    Thibetan" ,
                    > > which
                    > > describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his
                    visits to
                    > > N. and
                    > > S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This
                    > > manuscript is
                    > > the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it
                    and the
                    > > Steinerbooks people published it for years.
                    >
                    > Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa
                    drugstore
                    > farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books also
                    published Le
                    > Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although his story is a
                    remarkable
                    > one and worthy of remembrance....
                    >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > =====
                    > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                    >
                    > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                    > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                    >
                    > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
                    in practice, there is.
                    >
                    > __________________________________________________
                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                    > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                    > http://finance.yahoo.com
                  • Bill N
                    I don t agree with strip and post. Discontextual creates discontent. What is there to be afraid of? Ourselves? Doesn t wash. Bill ... From: SRC
                    Message 9 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I don't agree with strip and post. Discontextual creates discontent. What is
                      there to be afraid of? Ourselves? Doesn't wash.

                      Bill

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "SRC" <mozartg@...>
                      To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 10:31 AM
                      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] Geology, Evolution, Lemuria & Atlantis


                      > Dear DrSM:
                      >
                      > --- DRStarman2001@... wrote:
                      > > mozartg@... writes:
                      > >
                      > > > A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
                      > > > post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?
                      >
                      > > *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct. South
                      > > America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and
                      > > then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I
                      > could
                      > > post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's
                      > > interest,
                      > > and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr.
                      > > Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about races.
                      >
                      > I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet is a
                      > volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary without
                      > going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm all ears.
                      >
                      > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s manuscript "A
                      > > Dweller
                      > > On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the Thibetan" ,
                      > > which
                      > > describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his visits to
                      > > N. and
                      > > S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This
                      > > manuscript is
                      > > the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
                      > > Steinerbooks people published it for years.
                      >
                      > Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa drugstore
                      > farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books also published Le
                      > Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although his story is a remarkable
                      > one and worthy of remembrance....
                      >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > =====
                      > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                      >
                      > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                      > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                      >
                      > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
                      practice, there is.
                      >
                      > __________________________________________________
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                      > http://finance.yahoo.com
                      >
                      >
                      > 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: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
                    • Bill N
                      There is accuracy and importance in the relationship according to who is looking at what and where from. Steiner is always emphasizing this. We have a lot to
                      Message 10 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        There is accuracy and importance in the relationship according to who is
                        looking at what and where from. Steiner is always emphasizing this. We have
                        a lot to learn about time and space. Leaving it open is necessary and most
                        beneficial. I like what is being said here. ALL events are going on
                        simultaneously.

                        The past and present and future are always present.

                        Bill

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "jackstrange11" <jackfreed@...>
                        To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 11:30 AM
                        Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Geology, Evolution, Lemuria & Atlantis


                        >
                        >
                        > Dear Mozart, Starman, et al:
                        >
                        > Although I agree that the dating of modern science is extremely
                        > misleading and Ahrimanic, I am not sure whether the dates of science
                        > should be replaced by dates determined by spiritual research. I
                        > think that the entire conception of "time line" is part of the
                        > Ahrimanic science that we seek to augment. Whether an event ocurred 5
                        > million years ago or 50 million years ago has no real direct link to
                        > our consciousness .
                        >
                        > I believe that RS generally avoided exact dating of events preceding
                        > say 10,000 BC because of this conceptual problem and he constantly
                        > maintained that events and eras and epochs permeated each other and
                        > had no definite dividing lines.
                        >
                        > Recent posts on this list have pointed out new information that the
                        > speed of light may not be constant and that rates of radioactive
                        > decay cannot be extrapolated backwards in time, therefore the
                        > usefulness of the concept "year" as a measure of time is called into
                        > question. I do believe that the order of the succession of events is
                        > crucial in developing our imagination of the evolution of the world.
                        > We can picture in our minds the growth and metamorphosis of a plant
                        > without being concerned with the exact temporal measurement of each
                        > stage. I think this is what RS was after in say Chap 4 of Occult
                        > Science-it's the imagination and the sequence of imaginations that is
                        > important, not any exact measurements in years which is the hallmark
                        > of Baconian science.
                        >
                        > Lastly, I believe that Steiner's higher cognition entered into a
                        > realm where all these "events" were simultaneous. Once our
                        > consciousness descends into temporality then we begin to assign
                        > temporal values to the "past" happenings when in realty they are
                        > holographically present in our present being. The greater our self
                        > knowledge, the more independent do we become of the past and present.
                        >
                        > Kenneth
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
                        > > Dear DrSM:
                        > >
                        > > --- DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
                        > > > mozartg@y... writes:
                        > > >
                        > > > > A question: how do you understand the migration of races during
                        > > > > post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?
                        > >
                        > > > *******Yes, I read it and I'm sure quite a lot of it is correct.
                        > South
                        > > > America has a very old civilization that was refugees from
                        > Lemuria, and
                        > > > then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis.
                        > I
                        > > could
                        > > > post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if
                        > there's
                        > > > interest,
                        > > > and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr.
                        > > > Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about
                        > races.
                        > >
                        > > I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet
                        > is a
                        > > volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary
                        > without
                        > > going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm all ears.
                        > >
                        > > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
                        > manuscript "A
                        > > > Dweller
                        > > > On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the
                        > Thibetan" ,
                        > > > which
                        > > > describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his
                        > visits to
                        > > > N. and
                        > > > S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This
                        > > > manuscript is
                        > > > the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it
                        > and the
                        > > > Steinerbooks people published it for years.
                        > >
                        > > Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa
                        > drugstore
                        > > farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books also
                        > published Le
                        > > Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although his story is a
                        > remarkable
                        > > one and worthy of remembrance....
                        > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > =====
                        > > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                        > >
                        > > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                        > > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                        > >
                        > > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
                        > in practice, there is.
                        > >
                        > > __________________________________________________
                        > > Do You Yahoo!?
                        > > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                        > > http://finance.yahoo.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > 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: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
                      • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                        ... OK, here s the first part: ON MYTHS, ANCIENT CONSCIOUSNESS, & INITIATION : In ancient times all of we human beings could perceive psychically and saw
                        Message 11 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          vicki@... writes:

                          >******* South America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I could post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's interest.

                          > Yes please. I'm interested.
                          > Vicki Sivess

                          OK, here's the first part:

                          ON MYTHS, ANCIENT CONSCIOUSNESS, & "INITIATION": In ancient times all of we human beings could perceive psychically and saw the world in a higher way, though with little self-consciousness; and from the beginning of life on Earth, there was a way people who could see higher realities knew how to raise a person still higher, to "initiate" one to still higher levels. These methods were the same all over the world but adjusted to the time and place
                          where the initiates saw their people to be at in the mass. (See in this connection, for instance, "The Great Initiates" by Edouard Schure, on how this is the origin of all the great religions of history.) The Initiates sometimes put the truth they knew into the form of myth-pictures the people could understand, and some myths were already among we souls (for after all, in discussing "people" of past times we are actually discussing ourselves in past lives) handed down from still earlier truths given out by Initiates lost
                          in the mists of time, or just sensed directly by the mass of mankind in its primitive clairvoyance. And sometimes myths are both: a pre-existing myth used again by initiates. This is the origin of all mythology, ritual and even the theatre. (See, for instance "Hamlet's Mill" by Santillana, Robert Graves' "White Goddess" and Colin Wison's "The Occult: A History", among other works.)

                          THE SECRET DOCTRINE and the ROOT RACES: The "secret doctrine" Blavatsky, Steiner & other Theosophists describe being taught all down through time, right into the end of ancient clairvoyance in the time of Roman thinking, included pictures from the Akashic Records of our former states in the Lemurian Race and Atlantean--- "Race" not meaning color but a condition of mankind. (See, for example, "The Story of Atlantis and the Lost Lemuria" by
                          W. Scott-Elliot, although it contains errors, and "Cosmic Memory" and "An Outline Of Accult Science" by Dr. Steiner.) There are a total of seven Root Races from the beginning of Earth to its end: the first was called the "Polarian" and the second the
                          "Hyperborean", both of which were before we had a solid physical form. the Third was the Lemurian, in which we first took on
                          physical bodies, the Fourth was the Atlantean, and the Fifth or "Aryan" is our own. There will be two more following ours.
                          This information is taught by Theosophy and Anthroposophy and is called "The Secret Doctrine". This was the term for the teaching always given orally by initiates when people went beyond the exoteric form of their religion to the esoteric (Kabbalah, Sufism, Gnosticism, etc.). There is a dimension of experience called the "Akashic Record", a record of all that has ever happened in space and time, and scenes from the past can be seen there. Edgar
                          Cayce and Rudolf Steiner could read it, and Steiner gave out exercises to enable anyone to do so.


                          LEMURIA: The Lemurian "Root Race" began at the time when the matter that would become earth and moon was separating, like two groups of iron filings pulled to opposite poles, then both earth and moon began condensing out of this fiery-watery mass in which we, as souls, were living. Man first came into bodies in Lemuria, which is the 3rd Root Race; the first 2 were wholly spiritual states. The surface of the earth first solidified there. The people who point to the African Rift Valley as the true home of physical mankind are
                          right, but that "home" also included India, Australia & New Zealand, and all the Pacific Isles. The continent was partly destroyed in fiery volcanic activity, then the rest slowly subsided: the South Pacific islands are what were the tips of its mountains. The best-developed part of the Lemurian Race was then led by initiates to Atlantis, which was a continent from New York to Ireland and south to the Bahamas, at a time when very little of what is now Europe & N. America was above water. This sank in the last cataclysm 12,000 years ago and our recorded history begins there.

                          "Lemuria" is thus the name given to the ancient continent on which human beings first entered physical form. Lemuria was a vast equatorial continent that stretched from the African Rift Valley to California, when most of the rest of the earth had little solid land at all. This was originally named by paleontologists who noticed that lemurs live in Madagascar and in south India, but there are no fossil lemurs on any of the land presently connecting
                          those two, so there must have been a land bridge from Africa to Asia at one time which has sunk. The physical descendants of those first forms are in Africa, Australia, Southern India, etc. All are dark-skinned. Of course this was a phenomenally long time ago and other races came in later, just as the English have now come to Australia & New Zealand, etc.

                          Before we condensed into physical form we had three eyes, with our present two very undeveloped and the third eye an organ which shone light outwards, like a lantern. (The pineal gland or "Third Eye" is a remnant of this.) This was before a hard skull had developed or a hard earth-surface, and we swam in a murky "water-earth". The tuatara, the reptile which still has a third eye, shows a creature relatively unchanged from this ancient era. The evolution of man and animal was much more closely connected than
                          Darwinism believes.

                          The majority of birds and mammals are not found in fossils at the time of the great reptiles; they developed later. The mammal is the only creature that gives birth to its young live, rather than laying eggs containing creatures that complete their development after "birth", as in the lower phyla. In the marsupials such as the kangaroo, for instance, we see a creature that gives birth vaginally to unfinished forms; the young then crawl up into the pouch and finish their development within the mother's body---
                          clearly a creature half-way between the earlier life forms and the true mammal, a transitional stage to the placental ones. The pouched mammals are a transitional form between what existed previously and the true mammal of today, and these are found primarily in those parts of ancient Lemuria we call Australia, New Zealand, etc. ...even the only egg-laying "mammal" is only found there. This shows that the large mammals began there. This is why
                          Darwin and so many other naturalists went to the South Pacific to study its life forms. It is the only place to find the Galapagos tortoise, Komodo Island dragon, etc. So this region is a most ancient part of the earth, where some life forms (such as the marsupials) originated for the first time. The great age of the human skeletons found near the African Rift Valley supports
                          the conclusion that we first entered physical form there. Physical geology also knows that many a part of the earth has at one time been dry land, another at the bottom of the sea.

                          The American Indians were descended from the red race of Atlantis, as were the original Egyptians, who also were red-skinned and had no facial hair. The fake beards the pharoahs wore were evidence that the original "culture-bearers" in both the Yucatan and Egypt were of a different race: the Maya recalled Wira Kocha, a white man with a beard, as the one who gave them their sciences--- and he was associated with the east, the Atlantic, as the one who started their culture. Likewise although the native Egyptians were
                          red-skinned and beardless, they wore fake beards in apparent emulation of someone regarded as a god in ancient times. Now, why would they make up a myth figure of another race to put into their past? More likely he was a real person or persons. (Atlantis was a multi-racial society, as is present-day America: some were white, though the majority were red.)

                          The Mayas and Incas were descendants of the ancient civilization
                          that once stretched across the whole of what we call the Atlantic Ocean, as was "ancient" Egypt. The Egyptians portrayed themselves accurately on their wall paintings as a red-skinned race where the men had no facial hair, identical to the native Americans we found here 500 years ago, who were also descended from that long-ago people.

                          Much evidence for this is in Ignatius Donnelly's "Atlantis: The
                          Antediluvian World"---botanical, philological, etc. He had the
                          Library of Congress at his disposal. A few are: the Maya legends (in the Popul Vuh) saying their ancestors came from the Atlantic after a great catastrophe, the tale told Solon visiting Egypt in Plato's dialogues the Timaeus and Critias, the 341 statues of Egyptian priests seen by Herodotus in Egypt stretching
                          back to 11,000 B.C., the building of the gigantic pyramids in both Yucatan and Egypt (the enormous religious center in the capital of old Atlantis had that shape), the Egyptians entering from the Mediterranean to the Nile Valley and not growing out of pre-existing African cultures, the word "atl" being the name for ocean or water on both sides of the Atlantic, the word "huracan"
                          meaning god of storm in the Popul Vuh and found almost identical in Europe, the racial characteristics of red skin & no facial hair (once again, the Egyptians represented themselves quite accurately), the worship of the Sun, the practice of mummification, the connection of the horse to Poseidon (Poseidia was the name of the largest part of what we now call Atlantis, and it was here that the horse was first domesticated), the cultivation of the seedless banana on both sides of the Atlantic (which could not withstand a voyage through temperate zones, pointing to a land crossing).... and much, much more. Any single piece of evidence a person
                          could rip apart with superficial consideration, but taken as a whole by an objective mind, I think the evidence is overwhelming. Also, the building of the two Great Pyramids themselves points to a VERY advanced civilization (some of the blocks around the King's Chamber are estimated to be 70 tons of granite, raised 200 feet in the air and set perfectly in place)---in fact, MORE advanced than we are today. And this period of erection of enormous stones cut to fit exactly together is the most ancient (the Great Pyramids
                          are the OLDEST and others are later copies, not the reverse, as has been taught recently), just as the walls of Cuzco, Peru, show or the pyramids at Teotihuacan in Mexico. Everything points to a superior civilization initiating the cultures on both sides of
                          the Atlantic, and then declining.

                          Dr. Starman
                        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                          ... and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr. Pfeiffer s talk. However, be warned! We ll have to talk about races. ... *******OK, Pt.
                          Message 12 of 22 , Aug 24, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            mozartg@... writes:
                            > how do you understand the migration of races during post-Lemurian and post-Atlantean times?
                            >
                            > > ******* South America has a very old civilization that was refugees from Lemuria, and then much later the Maya came into Central America from Atlantis. I could post some things I've written here about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's interest,
                            and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr. Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about races.
                            >
                            > I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet is a volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if necessary without going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm all ears.

                            *******OK, Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;

                            "That there must have been a continent between Europe and America, even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them talk about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and distribution, then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-bridge. Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis". As soon as you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and mysticism, etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points to the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this. That there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less acceptable to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I have to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this question we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the field of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations, inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no difficulty whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the stubborn intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss mainly, who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so clear that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.

                            Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map (not attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in here, consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they were actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and the previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."

                            *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle Atlan was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which all mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the name of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in the many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the source of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up the sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans reached thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to see other people, because their history said all the world had been destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
                            And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's mountains, so it was not all flat either.


                            " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains and have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are other mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which were formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the Appalachian Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in fact to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent, especially in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales where we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.

                            ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with the end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we find cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided with Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even older than Lemuria, I don't know.

                            We'll coninue with more of Dr. Pfeiffer as long as there's interest.


                            > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in Atlantis 12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and India at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the Steinerbooks people published it for years.
                            >
                            > Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa drugstore farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books also published Le Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although his story is a remarkable one and worthy of remembrance....


                            ********I never did read Le Plongeon, so I don't have any basis to evaluate his works. I can say that the "Dweller" book is real, not at all like Mr. Rampa's claims. There is, however, a so-called "sequel" to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California (what IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's Return", which is as phony as a three-dollar bill. So separate the two.

                            Dr. Starman
                          • jackstrange11
                            Hello all, The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old mesoamerican city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in the
                            Message 13 of 22 , Aug 25, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello all,

                              The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old mesoamerican
                              city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in the
                              mainstream press but I have heard absolutely nothing since. Yet if
                              true it would severely test modern science's view of the growth of
                              civilizations.

                              Was this a hoax or is the world not interested??

                              http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/052602/sci_26science002.shtml


                              --- In anthroposophy@y..., DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
                              > mozartg@y... writes:
                              > > how do you understand the migration of races during post-Lemurian
                              and post-Atlantean times?
                              > >
                              > > > ******* South America has a very old civilization that was
                              refugees from Lemuria, and then much later the Maya came into Central
                              America from Atlantis. I could post some things I've written here
                              about Lemuria and Atlantis if there's interest,
                              > and also with your permission post some of the transcript of Dr.
                              Pfeiffer's talk. However, be warned! We'll have to talk about races.
                              > >
                              > > I'm game, but, agreed, it is an emotional trip-wire, and internet
                              is a volatile medium. I can easily flat disagree with you if
                              necessary without going ballistic. Snip and post as you wish. I'm
                              all ears.
                              >
                              > *******OK, Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;
                              >
                              > "That there must have been a continent between Europe and America,
                              even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them talk
                              about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and distribution,
                              then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-bridge.
                              Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge
                              that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis". As soon as
                              you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands
                              immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and mysticism,
                              etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points to
                              the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this. That
                              there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less acceptable
                              to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I have
                              to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be
                              brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little
                              bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of
                              Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted
                              especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant
                              migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this question
                              we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the field
                              of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find
                              plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the
                              existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations,
                              inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the
                              relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no difficulty
                              whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the stubborn
                              intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss mainly,
                              who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so clear
                              that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.
                              >
                              > Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map (not
                              attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in here,
                              consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they were
                              actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and the
                              previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."
                              >
                              > *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle Atlan
                              was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge
                              soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which all
                              mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after
                              sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the name
                              of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in the
                              many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the source
                              of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up the
                              sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the
                              Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans reached
                              thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to see
                              other people, because their history said all the world had been
                              destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
                              > And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's
                              mountains, so it was not all flat either.
                              >
                              >
                              > " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains and
                              have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are other
                              mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which were
                              formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the Appalachian
                              Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in fact
                              to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain
                              areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent, especially
                              in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales where
                              we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.
                              >
                              > ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with the
                              end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we find
                              cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less
                              haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles
                              from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-
                              continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided with
                              Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even older
                              than Lemuria, I don't know.
                              >
                              > We'll coninue with more of Dr. Pfeiffer as long as there's
                              interest.
                              >
                              >
                              > > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
                              manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling
                              himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in Atlantis
                              12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and India
                              at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real
                              thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
                              Steinerbooks people published it for years.
                              > >
                              > > Hmmm, I've seen it around, didn't know if it was a Robsang Lamsa
                              drugstore farce or what.... I'll check it out. But Steiner books
                              also published Le Plongeon which hasn't held up too well, although
                              his story is a remarkable one and worthy of remembrance....
                              >
                              >
                              > ********I never did read Le Plongeon, so I don't have any basis to
                              evaluate his works. I can say that the "Dweller" book is real, not at
                              all like Mr. Rampa's claims. There is, however, a so-called "sequel"
                              to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California (what
                              IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's Return",
                              which is as phony as a three-dollar bill. So separate the two.
                              >
                              > Dr. Starman
                            • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                              ... *******It s no hoax. It s being investigated by a small team headed by a Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here s a more recent report of the diving
                              Message 14 of 22 , Sep 1, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                jackfreed@... writes:
                                Hello all,
                                The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old mesoamerican
                                city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in the
                                mainstream press but I have heard absolutely nothing since. Yet if
                                true it would severely test modern science's view of the growth of
                                civilizations.
                                Was this a hoax or is the world not interested??

                                http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/052602/sci_26science002.shtml



                                *******It's no hoax. It's being investigated by a small team headed by a Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here's a more recent report of the diving expeditions:

                                http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=370&category=Science

                                   There have been a series of reports about it, just like the Yonaguni site found off Japan, although the press of course massively ignores all of it, and the regular archaeology newslists, dominated as they are by Ahrimanic 'scientists', do also.

                                -starman


                                Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;
                                >
                                >  "That there must have been a continent between Europe and America,
                                even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them talk
                                about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and distribution,
                                then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-bridge.
                                Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge
                                that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis".  As soon as
                                you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands
                                immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and mysticism,
                                etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points to
                                the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this. That
                                there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less acceptable
                                to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I have
                                to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be
                                brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little
                                bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of
                                Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted
                                especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant
                                migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this question
                                we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the field
                                of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find
                                plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the
                                existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations,
                                inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the
                                relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no difficulty
                                whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the stubborn
                                intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss mainly,
                                who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so clear
                                that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.
                                >
                                >    Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map (not
                                attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in here,
                                consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they were
                                actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and the
                                previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."
                                >
                                > *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle Atlan
                                was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge
                                soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which all
                                mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after
                                sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the name
                                of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in the
                                many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the source
                                of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up the
                                sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the
                                Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans reached
                                thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to see
                                other people, because their history said all the world had been
                                destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
                                >     And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's
                                mountains, so it was not all flat either.
                                >
                                >
                                > " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains and
                                have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are other
                                mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which were
                                formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the Appalachian
                                Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in fact
                                to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain
                                areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent, especially
                                in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales where
                                we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.
                                >
                                > ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with the
                                end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we find
                                cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less
                                haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles
                                from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-
                                continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided with
                                Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even older
                                than Lemuria, I don't know.
                                >
                                >
                                > > >    Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
                                manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling
                                himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in Atlantis
                                12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and India
                                at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real
                                thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
                                Steinerbooks people published it for years. There is, however, a so-called "sequel"
                                to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California (what
                                IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's Return",
                                which is phony...


                              • jackstrange11
                                Starman, Thanks for the link. It is indeed amazing that a 20 kilometer city of megolithic structures that may date back 15,000 years sits on the bottom of the
                                Message 15 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Starman,
                                  Thanks for the link. It is indeed amazing that a 20 kilometer city
                                  of megolithic structures that may date back 15,000 years sits on the
                                  bottom of the Carribean and Zelitsky struggles to raise the cash to
                                  send down a sub. I thought that humans had barely just crossed over
                                  the land bridge at this time, hunters and gathers who were thousands
                                  of years from developing cities. Just recently someone posted an
                                  article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner because
                                  Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the time of
                                  Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our factual
                                  knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all of
                                  his suggestions.
                                  Part of the problem in excavating this site is that Zelitsky is under
                                  the auspices of the Cuban government so it must be difficult to draw
                                  upon American resources. You would think that the US and Cuba could
                                  cooperate since this information would be of great interest to both
                                  countries.

                                  Kenneth


                                  --- In anthroposophy@y..., DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
                                  > jackfreed@m... writes:
                                  > > Hello all,
                                  > > The following story about the discovery of a 6000 yr old
                                  mesoamerican
                                  > > city on the floor of the Carribean was reported last December in
                                  the
                                  > > mainstream press but I have heard absolutely nothing since. Yet
                                  if
                                  > > true it would severely test modern science's view of the growth
                                  of
                                  > > civilizations.
                                  > > Was this a hoax or is the world not interested??
                                  > >
                                  > > http://www.theadvocate.com/stories/052602/sci_26science002.shtml
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  > *******It's no hoax. It's being investigated by a small team headed
                                  by a
                                  > Russian scientist, Paulina Zelitsky. Here's a more recent report of
                                  the
                                  > diving expeditions:
                                  >
                                  > http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=370&category=Science
                                  >
                                  > There have been a series of reports about it, just like the
                                  Yonaguni site
                                  > found off Japan, although the press of course massively ignores all
                                  of it,
                                  > and the regular archaeology newslists, dominated as they are by
                                  Ahrimanic
                                  > 'scientists', do also.
                                  >
                                  > -starman
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > Pt. One of Dr. Pfeiffer, speaking in 1956;
                                  > > >
                                  > > > "That there must have been a continent between Europe and
                                  America,
                                  > > even the geologists admit: that is, the most orthodox of them
                                  talk
                                  > > about a "land-bridge". If we study the plant growth and
                                  distribution,
                                  > > then we must by necessity come to the conclusion of a land-
                                  bridge.
                                  > > Nevertheless, the orthodox geologist does not like to acknowledge
                                  > > that this land bridge was a continent called "Atlantis". As soon
                                  as
                                  > > you talk to them about Atlantis, then they throw up their hands
                                  > > immediately and say: this is humbug, this is hearsay and
                                  mysticism,
                                  > > etc., etc. While all the data of the migration of species points
                                  to
                                  > > the existence of a land bridge, they do not want to accept this.
                                  That
                                  > > there was another continent called "Lemuria" is even less
                                  acceptable
                                  > > to the orthodox geologists. So in that which I am telling you, I
                                  have
                                  > > to bypass for the sake of time all the arguments which could be
                                  > > brought forward in order to shake up even the geologists a little
                                  > > bit; I shall just proceed on the premise that the existence of
                                  > > Atlantis and Lemuria are generally accepted. They can be accepted
                                  > > especially if we look upon them in terms of animal and plant
                                  > > migrations. Whether the continents move around as such, this
                                  question
                                  > > we will withdraw for the moment. If, however, we look into the
                                  field
                                  > > of Mythology and the migrations of the races, then we will find
                                  > > plenty of information and data which will force us to accept the
                                  > > existence of Atlantis and Lemuria. The Mexican civilizations,
                                  > > inasmuch as is taught about their relics; the archeology of the
                                  > > relics, in the University of Merida for instance, have no
                                  difficulty
                                  > > whatsoever to accept Atlantis as a reality. It is just the
                                  stubborn
                                  > > intellectual minds in this country and some German and Swiss
                                  mainly,
                                  > > who refuse the idea. In Yucatan, the Atlantean overflow is so
                                  clear
                                  > > that you cannot avoid hitting upon it with every step.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Now I would like you to form a simple picture on this map
                                  (not
                                  > > attached). It is apparent that the Atlantean continent was in
                                  here,
                                  > > consisting of rather flat islands. No high mountains, for they
                                  were
                                  > > actually formed on earth after the submergence of Atlantis and
                                  the
                                  > > previous Lemuria, which was also rather flat...."
                                  > > >
                                  > > > *******I disagree with him there; most of Western and middle
                                  Atlan
                                  > > was flat, but the Eastern part of Atlantis had a number of huge
                                  > > soaring mountains, especially the legendary "Mount Atlas" which
                                  all
                                  > > mariners remembered seeing on first sighting the continent after
                                  > > sailing West out of the Pillars of Hercules. (This was where the
                                  name
                                  > > of the continent came from in Europe and it's still remembered in
                                  the
                                  > > many Atlas mountains in western Africa, as well as being the
                                  source
                                  > > of the Greek myth of Atlas at the Western mountain, holding up
                                  the
                                  > > sky.) Today these soaring mountains still poke up out of the
                                  > > Atlantic: we call them the Azores. When the first Europeans
                                  reached
                                  > > thee, the reddish-skinned inhabitants were utterly astounded to
                                  see
                                  > > other people, because their history said all the world had been
                                  > > destroyed in a cataclysm except themselves.
                                  > > > And the islands of the Pacific were the tips of Lemuria's
                                  > > mountains, so it was not all flat either.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > " The Rocky Mountains, Alps, etc., are rather young mountains
                                  and
                                  > > have formed only since the submergence of Atlantis. There are
                                  other
                                  > > mountains in central Asia, north Africa and North America which
                                  were
                                  > > formed with the disappearance of Lemuria. However, the
                                  Appalachian
                                  > > Mountains are much older and date back before Lemurian times, in
                                  fact
                                  > > to the earliest formation of mountains on earth. We have certain
                                  > > areas where we have leftovers of the Atlantean continent,
                                  especially
                                  > > in the plains of Portugal, a few stretches in Ireland and Wales
                                  where
                                  > > we find left-overs that were not broken off the Atlantean shelf.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > ******* He's correct that the Rocky Mountains were formed with
                                  the
                                  > > end of Atlantis, and the Andes as well (which explains why we
                                  find
                                  > > cities atop mountains where you can barely breathe now, much less
                                  > > haul enormous stones, and docks at Tiahuanaco, which is now miles
                                  > > from Lake Titicaca). The Himalayas were formed when the "sub-
                                  > > continent" we now call India broke off from Lemuria and collided
                                  with
                                  > > Asia, gelogy now knows. Why he says the Appalachians are even
                                  older
                                  > > than Lemuria, I don't know.
                                  > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > > Also, I highly recommend the spirit-dictated 1880s
                                  > > manuscript "A Dweller On Two Planets" by the being calling
                                  > > himself "Phylos the Thibetan" , which describes his life in
                                  Atlantis
                                  > > 12,000 years ago and also his visits to N. and S. America and
                                  India
                                  > > at that time and what they were like. This manuscript is the real
                                  > > thing. The Edgar Cayce readings used to quote from it and the
                                  > > Steinerbooks people published it for years. There is, however, a
                                  so-called
                                  > > "sequel"
                                  > > to it done by some of the inevitable loonies out in California
                                  (what
                                  > > IS it about that place, anyway?) called "An Earth Dweller's
                                  Return",
                                  > > which is phony...
                                  > >
                                • SRC
                                  Dear Kenneth: Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no idea what ... I m asking because I think I may be the person you are referring
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Kenneth:

                                    Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no idea what
                                    you are talking about when you say:

                                    --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                                    > Just recently someone posted an
                                    > article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner because
                                    > Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the time of
                                    > Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our factual
                                    > knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all of
                                    > his suggestions.

                                    I'm asking because I think I may be the person you are referring to. If
                                    so, you misread me completely. It's obvious to me, and I certainly made
                                    enough references to the fact in my article, that Mesoamerica had a high
                                    culture extending back into pre-CE times. One of my points was that in
                                    spite of the large amount of historical and archeological data now
                                    available to us (still hardly satisfactory, as anyone will admit, but
                                    still sufficient to prove or disprove many a theory), we still must be
                                    open to Steiner's occasionally poorly-informed sounding suggestions in GA
                                    171. In some of his remarks it is obvious that he was not speaking as an
                                    initiate, but merely as a typically-well or not-so-well-informed person of
                                    his time. Some of his remarks are obviously Communications From An
                                    Initiate. The more one studies his observations, the more clear the
                                    difference becomes.

                                    Best Regards,

                                    Stephen


                                    =====
                                    Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                                    Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                    ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                                    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                    http://finance.yahoo.com
                                  • jackstrange11
                                    Stephen, You re quite right. I don t mean to imply that you were saying that there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not so sure that
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Sep 2, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Stephen,
                                      You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
                                      there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
                                      so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
                                      171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                                      sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
                                      how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
                                      or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
                                      essay raise the following questions in my mind.

                                      RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                                      telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
                                      0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                                      ////////////////////////////////////////////////////

                                      "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
                                      provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
                                      dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
                                      Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
                                      by the
                                      Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
                                      Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
                                      and
                                      16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
                                      which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
                                      still
                                      no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                                      civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
                                      researchers in Steiner?s day."
                                      ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
                                      when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                                      Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                                      sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
                                      Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                                      referring to the Aztec records. Only if there was absolutely no
                                      contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
                                      including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                                      naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
                                      name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                                      literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                                      said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                                      reading some book?

                                      Later you say:
                                      ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                                      >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                                      original
                                      >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
                                      is -
                                      >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                                      >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
                                      name of
                                      >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                                      Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
                                      whom
                                      multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
                                      the
                                      famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                                      displayed.
                                      How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
                                      saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                                      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      ////////
                                      Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                                      appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
                                      that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                                      Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.

                                      More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                                      Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                                      later, but I cannot find where he does so.
                                      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      /////
                                      "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
                                      periods
                                      involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
                                      us
                                      note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                                      English
                                      edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
                                      within
                                      the context of our present focus: "
                                      "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
                                      tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
                                      they
                                      were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                                      "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                                      substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                                      millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
                                      the
                                      Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
                                      of
                                      Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                                      enjoyed
                                      ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"

                                      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      /////////////////////////////////
                                      I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
                                      3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                                      lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant. Why is he
                                      substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
                                      names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                                      necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
                                      RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
                                      cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
                                      cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
                                      early cultures.
                                      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      ///////////////////////////////////////
                                      "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                                      his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                                      between
                                      Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
                                      other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
                                      that
                                      it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
                                      has
                                      not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
                                      the
                                      fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
                                      while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                                      circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                                      //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                                      Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                                      refer to the records of the later Aztecs? Does stomach removal
                                      contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?

                                      I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
                                      critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                                      lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                                      mesoamerica.

                                      Kenneth








                                      --- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
                                      > Dear Kenneth:
                                      >
                                      > Yes to all your comments regarding Zelitsky. However I have no
                                      idea what
                                      > you are talking about when you say:
                                      >
                                      > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@m...> wrote:
                                      > > Just recently someone posted an
                                      > > article by an anthroposophist sort of apologizing for Steiner
                                      because
                                      > > Steiner had placed high mezoamerican civilization back to the
                                      time of
                                      > > Christ in his "America" lectures but now it seems that our
                                      factual
                                      > > knowledge is so limited in this area that we must be open to all
                                      of
                                      > > his suggestions.
                                      >
                                      > I'm asking because I think I may be the person you are referring
                                      to. If
                                      > so, you misread me completely. It's obvious to me, and I certainly
                                      made
                                      > enough references to the fact in my article, that Mesoamerica had a
                                      high
                                      > culture extending back into pre-CE times. One of my points was
                                      that in
                                      > spite of the large amount of historical and archeological data now
                                      > available to us (still hardly satisfactory, as anyone will admit,
                                      but
                                      > still sufficient to prove or disprove many a theory), we still must
                                      be
                                      > open to Steiner's occasionally poorly-informed sounding suggestions
                                      in GA
                                      > 171. In some of his remarks it is obvious that he was not speaking
                                      as an
                                      > initiate, but merely as a typically-well or not-so-well-informed
                                      person of
                                      > his time. Some of his remarks are obviously Communications From An
                                      > Initiate. The more one studies his observations, the more clear the
                                      > difference becomes.
                                      >
                                      > Best Regards,
                                      >
                                      > Stephen
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > =====
                                      > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                                      >
                                      > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                      > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                                      >
                                      > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
                                      in practice, there is.
                                      >
                                      > __________________________________________________
                                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                                      > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                      > http://finance.yahoo.com
                                    • SRC
                                      ... Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost duplicate,
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Kenneth:

                                        --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:

                                        > Stephen,
                                        > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
                                        > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
                                        > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
                                        > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                                        > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
                                        > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
                                        > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
                                        > essay raise the following questions in my mind.

                                        Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear
                                        in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
                                        duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
                                        substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
                                        One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel on
                                        Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is not what
                                        he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but what
                                        he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
                                        Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are contained
                                        in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the macabre
                                        and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
                                        protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must have
                                        engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else which
                                        causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in these
                                        lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to indigenous
                                        American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
                                        pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of negligible
                                        importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>, <Mexican
                                        culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>, and all
                                        in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate enough in
                                        terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
                                        opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>, he does
                                        no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic appreciation
                                        for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I find
                                        this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you wish; I
                                        don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
                                        here.)
                                        The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I do
                                        below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence, in the
                                        long run.

                                        > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                                        > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
                                        > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                                        > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        >
                                        > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
                                        > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
                                        > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
                                        > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
                                        > by the
                                        > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
                                        > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
                                        > and
                                        > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
                                        > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
                                        > still
                                        > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                                        > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
                                        > researchers in Steiner?s day."
                                        > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
                                        > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                                        > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                                        > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
                                        > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                                        > referring to the Aztec records.

                                        Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as there
                                        is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
                                        speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for the
                                        English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
                                        languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply extravagent
                                        hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation, although it
                                        is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that Olmecs
                                        and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.

                                        > Only if there was absolutely no
                                        > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
                                        > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                                        > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
                                        > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                                        > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                                        > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                                        > reading some book?

                                        One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
                                        esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not always
                                        make it easy for us....
                                        Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but he also
                                        demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
                                        grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method. So, if
                                        you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would like to
                                        think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what he did,
                                        evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
                                        explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this instance.
                                        I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate it,
                                        that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the time -
                                        _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)

                                        > Later you say:
                                        > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                                        > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                                        > original
                                        > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
                                        > is -
                                        > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                                        > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
                                        > name of
                                        > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                                        > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
                                        > whom
                                        > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
                                        > the
                                        > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                                        > displayed.
                                        > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
                                        > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                                        > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > ////////
                                        > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                                        > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
                                        > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                                        > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.

                                        I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption of
                                        atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and that it
                                        is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities, much the
                                        same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance 1st.
                                        C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!

                                        > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                                        > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                                        > later, but I cannot find where he does so.

                                        I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to check
                                        what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
                                        typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be inevitable
                                        that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity between
                                        the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he describes.
                                        Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
                                        important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
                                        meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of Mesoamerica
                                        to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his sketchy
                                        1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
                                        understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.

                                        Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human sacrifice
                                        practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
                                        <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-period
                                        practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own time,
                                        of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing in
                                        pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and none
                                        against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
                                        difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr. Steiner if
                                        he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_ speak of
                                        the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his initiate
                                        skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and <occult
                                        means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems to shift
                                        into another gear altogether.
                                        > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > /////
                                        > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
                                        > periods
                                        > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
                                        > us
                                        > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                                        > English
                                        > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
                                        > within
                                        > the context of our present focus: "
                                        > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
                                        > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
                                        > they
                                        > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                                        > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                                        > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                                        > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
                                        > the
                                        > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
                                        > of
                                        > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                                        > enjoyed
                                        > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"
                                        >
                                        > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > /////////////////////////////////
                                        > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
                                        > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                                        > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.

                                        I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant confusion in
                                        the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that arises
                                        because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.

                                        In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
                                        suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the discovery of
                                        that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of Mexican
                                        priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut out
                                        their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
                                        knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing to you.>

                                        Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly clear
                                        from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
                                        referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
                                        Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
                                        stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the temples -
                                        after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was practised by
                                        them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
                                        record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have been
                                        relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad pop
                                        journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his statement
                                        is wrong as it stands.

                                        > Why is he
                                        > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
                                        > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                                        > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
                                        > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
                                        > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
                                        > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
                                        > early cultures.

                                        Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
                                        because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance above,
                                        he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
                                        descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
                                        word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the Spanish
                                        codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the supposed
                                        stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that one is
                                        unique to Steiner.
                                        I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-excision
                                        could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
                                        Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is known
                                        about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal heads, or
                                        the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
                                        > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > ///////////////////////////////////////
                                        > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                                        > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                                        > between
                                        > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
                                        > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
                                        > that
                                        > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
                                        > has
                                        > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
                                        > the
                                        > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
                                        > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                                        > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                                        > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                                        > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                                        > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?

                                        Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
                                        thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs - except for
                                        the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful gnostic
                                        astrologer-contemplatives. ha.

                                        > Does stomach removal
                                        > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?

                                        No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way from
                                        being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave it as
                                        a problem awaiting resolution.

                                        > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
                                        > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                                        > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                                        > mesoamerica.

                                        My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however he
                                        spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them shouldn't
                                        be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy thinking. This
                                        material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably inclined to
                                        give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to Steiner's
                                        ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican who
                                        read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to have
                                        the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged down in
                                        supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be able to
                                        give him the benefit of the doubt.

                                        Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
                                        pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to many
                                        questions are still pending, and need more research.

                                        In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and objections; I
                                        shall continue to ponder them.

                                        Best Regards,

                                        Stephen


                                        =====
                                        Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                                        Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                        ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                                        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                        http://finance.yahoo.com
                                      • jackstrange11
                                        Stephen Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay. -I think
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Stephen
                                          Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to
                                          this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay.

                                          -I think that Steiner may seem unsympathetic to mesoamerican culture
                                          because these lectures center on an Ahrimanic disturbance that was
                                          left over from Atlantis. A disturbance that is still in effect and
                                          which can have a negative influence on human evolution. A more
                                          sympathetic and comprehensive view of mesoamerica was not the task at
                                          hand.
                                          _Also, RS continually harped on the evil undercurrents that are
                                          indigenous to all civilizations, especially Europe. Much of
                                          anthroposophy concerns the illness of European culture-- utterly
                                          decadent churches and cultures of dead materialistic superstition.
                                          Recognition of evil in all of its forms and manifestations is
                                          necessary for spiritual growth. His content was richer when
                                          discussing Europe because that was his and his immediate followers'
                                          enviroment.

                                          Kenneth

                                          -- In anthroposophy@y..., SRC <mozartg@y...> wrote:
                                          > Dear Kenneth:
                                          >
                                          > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@m...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > > Stephen,
                                          > > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying
                                          that
                                          > > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am
                                          not
                                          > > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of
                                          GA
                                          > > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                                          > > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present
                                          knowledge,
                                          > > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be
                                          misreading
                                          > > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and
                                          your
                                          > > essay raise the following questions in my mind.
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was
                                          unclear
                                          > in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
                                          > duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
                                          > substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
                                          > One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel
                                          on
                                          > Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is
                                          not what
                                          > he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but
                                          what
                                          > he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
                                          > Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are
                                          contained
                                          > in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the
                                          macabre
                                          > and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
                                          > protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must
                                          have
                                          > engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else
                                          which
                                          > causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in
                                          these
                                          > lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to
                                          indigenous
                                          > American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
                                          > pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of
                                          negligible
                                          > importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>,
                                          <Mexican
                                          > culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>,
                                          and all
                                          > in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate
                                          enough in
                                          > terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
                                          > opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>,
                                          he does
                                          > no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic
                                          appreciation
                                          > for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I
                                          find
                                          > this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you
                                          wish; I
                                          > don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
                                          > here.)
                                          > The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I
                                          do
                                          > below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence,
                                          in the
                                          > long run.
                                          >
                                          > > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                                          > > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient
                                          year
                                          > > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                                          > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          > >
                                          > > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This
                                          name
                                          > > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in
                                          the
                                          > > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for
                                          the
                                          > > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as
                                          interpreted
                                          > > by the
                                          > > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the
                                          early
                                          > > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C.
                                          A.D.,
                                          > > and
                                          > > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and
                                          divides
                                          > > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there
                                          is
                                          > > still
                                          > > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                                          > > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for
                                          all
                                          > > researchers in Steiner?s day."
                                          >
                                          > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          > > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name
                                          that,
                                          > > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                                          > > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                                          > > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec
                                          civilization?
                                          > > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                                          > > referring to the Aztec records.
                                          >
                                          > Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as
                                          there
                                          > is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
                                          > speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for
                                          the
                                          > English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
                                          > languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply
                                          extravagent
                                          > hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation,
                                          although it
                                          > is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that
                                          Olmecs
                                          > and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.
                                          >
                                          > > Only if there was absolutely no
                                          > > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec
                                          culture,
                                          > > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                                          > > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of
                                          the
                                          > > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                                          > > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                                          > > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                                          > > reading some book?
                                          >
                                          > One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
                                          > esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not
                                          always
                                          > make it easy for us....
                                          > Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but
                                          he also
                                          > demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
                                          > grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method.
                                          So, if
                                          > you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would
                                          like to
                                          > think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what
                                          he did,
                                          > evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
                                          > explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this
                                          instance.
                                          > I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate
                                          it,
                                          > that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the
                                          time -
                                          > _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)
                                          >
                                          > > Later you say:
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          > > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                                          > > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                                          > > original
                                          > > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that
                                          Huitzilopochtli
                                          > > is -
                                          > > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                                          > > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by
                                          the
                                          > > name of
                                          > > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                                          > > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs
                                          to
                                          > > whom
                                          > > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose
                                          temple
                                          > > the
                                          > > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                                          > > displayed.
                                          > > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes
                                          as the
                                          > > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          //
                                          > > ////////
                                          > > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                                          > > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators
                                          thought
                                          > > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                                          > > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.
                                          >
                                          > I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption
                                          of
                                          > atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and
                                          that it
                                          > is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities,
                                          much the
                                          > same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance
                                          1st.
                                          > C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!
                                          >
                                          > > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                                          > > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                                          > > later, but I cannot find where he does so.
                                          >
                                          > I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to
                                          check
                                          > what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
                                          > typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be
                                          inevitable
                                          > that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity
                                          between
                                          > the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he
                                          describes.
                                          > Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
                                          > important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
                                          > meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of
                                          Mesoamerica
                                          > to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his
                                          sketchy
                                          > 1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
                                          > understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.
                                          >
                                          > Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human
                                          sacrifice
                                          > practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
                                          > <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-
                                          period
                                          > practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own
                                          time,
                                          > of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing
                                          in
                                          > pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and
                                          none
                                          > against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
                                          > difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr.
                                          Steiner if
                                          > he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_
                                          speak of
                                          > the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his
                                          initiate
                                          > skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and
                                          <occult
                                          > means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems
                                          to shift
                                          > into another gear altogether.
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          //
                                          > > /////
                                          > > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the
                                          time-
                                          > > periods
                                          > > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers.
                                          Let
                                          > > us
                                          > > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                                          > > English
                                          > > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the
                                          tendency
                                          > > within
                                          > > the context of our present focus: "
                                          > > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to
                                          reach a
                                          > > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico,
                                          until
                                          > > they
                                          > > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                                          > > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                                          > > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                                          > > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca
                                          entered
                                          > > the
                                          > > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their
                                          trajectory
                                          > > of
                                          > > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                                          > > enjoyed
                                          > > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty
                                          registering"
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          //
                                          > > /////////////////////////////////
                                          > > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171
                                          Lectures
                                          > > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                                          > > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.
                                          >
                                          > I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant
                                          confusion in
                                          > the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that
                                          arises
                                          > because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.
                                          >
                                          > In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
                                          > suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the
                                          discovery of
                                          > that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of
                                          Mexican
                                          > priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut
                                          out
                                          > their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
                                          > knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing
                                          to you.>
                                          >
                                          > Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly
                                          clear
                                          > from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
                                          > referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
                                          > Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
                                          > stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the
                                          temples -
                                          > after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was
                                          practised by
                                          > them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
                                          > record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have
                                          been
                                          > relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad
                                          pop
                                          > journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his
                                          statement
                                          > is wrong as it stands.
                                          >
                                          > > Why is he
                                          > > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity
                                          in
                                          > > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                                          > > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think
                                          that
                                          > > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the
                                          Mexican
                                          > > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year
                                          0
                                          > > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and
                                          those
                                          > > early cultures.
                                          >
                                          > Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
                                          > because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance
                                          above,
                                          > he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
                                          > descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
                                          > word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the
                                          Spanish
                                          > codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the
                                          supposed
                                          > stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that
                                          one is
                                          > unique to Steiner.
                                          > I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-
                                          excision
                                          > could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
                                          > Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is
                                          known
                                          > about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal
                                          heads, or
                                          > the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          //
                                          > > ///////////////////////////////////////
                                          > > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                                          > > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                                          > > between
                                          > > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and
                                          all
                                          > > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which
                                          testify
                                          > > that
                                          > > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This
                                          contradiction
                                          > > has
                                          > > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated
                                          by
                                          > > the
                                          > > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-
                                          removal,
                                          > > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                                          > > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                                          >
                                          > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          //
                                          > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                                          > > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                                          > > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?
                                          >
                                          > Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
                                          > thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs -
                                          except for
                                          > the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful
                                          gnostic
                                          > astrologer-contemplatives. ha.
                                          >
                                          > > Does stomach removal
                                          > > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?
                                          >
                                          > No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way
                                          from
                                          > being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave
                                          it as
                                          > a problem awaiting resolution.
                                          >
                                          > > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be
                                          read
                                          > > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                                          > > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                                          > > mesoamerica.
                                          >
                                          > My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however
                                          he
                                          > spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them
                                          shouldn't
                                          > be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy
                                          thinking. This
                                          > material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably
                                          inclined to
                                          > give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to
                                          Steiner's
                                          > ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican
                                          who
                                          > read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to
                                          have
                                          > the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged
                                          down in
                                          > supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be
                                          able to
                                          > give him the benefit of the doubt.
                                          >
                                          > Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
                                          > pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to
                                          many
                                          > questions are still pending, and need more research.
                                          >
                                          > In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and
                                          objections; I
                                          > shall continue to ponder them.
                                          >
                                          > Best Regards,
                                          >
                                          > Stephen
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > =====
                                          > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                                          >
                                          > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                          > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                                          >
                                          > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but
                                          in practice, there is.
                                          >
                                          > __________________________________________________
                                          > Do You Yahoo!?
                                          > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                          > http://finance.yahoo.com
                                        • Bill N
                                          Stephen, Would you send me that reference. Thank you. Bill ... From: SRC To: Sent: Tuesday, September 03,
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Sep 3, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Stephen,

                                            Would you send me that reference. Thank you.

                                            Bill
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "SRC" <mozartg@...>
                                            To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 11:02 AM
                                            Subject: [anthroposophy] Steiner in GA 171


                                            > Dear Kenneth:
                                            >
                                            > --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > Stephen,
                                            > > You're quite right. I don't mean to imply that you were saying that
                                            > > there was no high Mexican culture 2000 years ago; although I am not
                                            > > so sure that Steiner said anything in the 2 relevant lectures of GA
                                            > > 171 that would indicate he was poorly informed or relying on bad
                                            > > sources. Plus given the incomplete nature of our present knowledge,
                                            > > how do we judge whether he was poorly informed? I may be misreading
                                            > > or reading the wrong lectures but the 2 lectures 0f GA 171 and your
                                            > > essay raise the following questions in my mind.
                                            >
                                            > Thanks for this, Ken, and I will review my piece to see if I was unclear
                                            > in presenting my points, or maybe even mistaken. The two, almost
                                            > duplicate, lectures of GA 171 are the only places where he makes
                                            > substantial comments about Mesoamerica.
                                            > One thing that makes me leery of taking Steiner as Complete Gospel on
                                            > Mesoamerica - beyond the very limited extent of his remarks - is not what
                                            > he does say, and the questions that surround those indications, but what
                                            > he does _not_ say. Read Marman & Markman's The Flayed God or David
                                            > Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica to see what vast wisdoms are contained
                                            > in Ancestral American spiritualities. Steiner only focuses on the macabre
                                            > and degenerate aspects, and describes nothing of the _method_ of the
                                            > protagonist or of the positive elements in his culture which must have
                                            > engendered or supported him. It is this more than anything else which
                                            > causes me to look with a jaaundiced eye at what he _does_ say in these
                                            > lectures. There is also another instance in which he refers to indigenous
                                            > American spirituality in such terms as: <utterly decadent,
                                            > pseudo-magical>, <decadent superstitions>, <such lore is of negligible
                                            > importance>, <pure superstition>, <decadent>, <superstition>, <Mexican
                                            > culture is decadent culture>, and <something extremely primitive>, and all
                                            > in one paragraph. While all that may well be true, and accurate enough in
                                            > terms of context, it is still another instance in which, given the
                                            > opportunity to <find the beauty in a dead hound's gleaming tooth>, he does
                                            > no such thing, but displays his general lack of sympathetic appreciation
                                            > for things Mexican-American and his lack of nuanced information. I find
                                            > this disquieting. (I can send you the reference privately if you wish; I
                                            > don't want to feed the flames of Dugan's Steiner-hatred by giving it
                                            > here.)
                                            > The details of what he does say can be debated back and forth- as I do
                                            > below in replying to you - but all that is of not much consequence, in the
                                            > long run.
                                            >
                                            > > RS's use of certain names seems to you to indicate that he's
                                            > > telescoping later Aztec culture backwards on to the more ancient year
                                            > > 0 Mexican cultures. For example you say:
                                            > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > >
                                            > > "First of all, the language. For instance: "Vitzliputzli." This name
                                            > > provokes no associations, and a casual search for explanation in the
                                            > > dictionaries and lexicons is fruitless. All his terminology for the
                                            > > Mesoamerican deities derives from the Aztec records (as interpreted
                                            > > by the
                                            > > Spanish), but the events to which he refers date from both the early
                                            > > Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan era and the late-classic Aztec; 1st C. A.D.,
                                            > > and
                                            > > 16th C. A.D., respectively. Between the two are vast gulfs and divides
                                            > > which were not even suspected in Steiner?s day, and while there is
                                            > > still
                                            > > no record of any written language for the critical Teotihuacan
                                            > > civilization, the prolific but enigmatic Maya script was mute for all
                                            > > researchers in Steiner?s day."
                                            > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > But Steiner says--"The being of the virgin birth bore a name that,
                                            > > when we try to transpose it into our speech approximates
                                            > > Vitzliputzli." Why couldn't the Aztec names be a coalescense of
                                            > > sound archetypes that existed well before high Aztec civilization?
                                            > > Then Steiner may be referring to the archetypal name and not
                                            > > referring to the Aztec records.
                                            >
                                            > Well, that's a very good point, and one I hadn't thought of, but as there
                                            > is __no__ record of any Olmec/Teotihuacan language, that is strictly
                                            > speculative. Also <Vitzliputzli> _is_ the German translation for the
                                            > English/Spanish <Huitzilopochtli>: it's the same name in different
                                            > languages. Since it is generally advisable not to multiply extravagent
                                            > hypotheses unnecessarily, I opt for the latter interpretation, although it
                                            > is presumed, from default and lack of contrary information, that Olmecs
                                            > and Teotihuacanos did speak some form of Nahuatl.
                                            >
                                            > > Only if there was absolutely no
                                            > > contact between Olmec-Mayan-Teotihuacan culture and Aztec culture,
                                            > > including on the archetypal level, can we conclude that Steiner's
                                            > > naming is misplaced. Also since Steiner alluded to the sound of the
                                            > > name, then I suspect he was reading the Akashic and not the pop
                                            > > literature of this time. Wouldn't he be committing a fraud if he
                                            > > said the "the names sound like..." but he got the name by simply
                                            > > reading some book?
                                            >
                                            > One would not need to call it fraud, only a confusing conflation of
                                            > esoteric and exoteric sources of information. Steiner does not always
                                            > make it easy for us....
                                            > Yes, Steiner could very well have gotten it from the Akashic, but he also
                                            > demands that we exercise critical Thinking and do the homework of
                                            > grounding his statements in common sense and scientific method. So, if
                                            > you opt for a <he read the Akashic Record> interpretation, I would like to
                                            > think that you could adduce convincing evidence that that was what he did,
                                            > evidence either from your own parallel access to the Akasha or from
                                            > explicit statements from Steiner that that was the case in this instance.
                                            > I think, on the other hand, and I went to great lengths to indicate it,
                                            > that he was, indeed, overly influenced by the pop literature of the time -
                                            > _in his circumstantial details, not in his main thesis_. (emphasis)
                                            >
                                            > > Later you say:
                                            > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > ".>"Vitzliputzli "" Huitzilopochtli"
                                            > > >we note that the term has not been translated, but left in its
                                            > > original
                                            > > >and unfamiliar German form. It is no mystery that Huitzilopochtli
                                            > > is -
                                            > > >and has always been - standard English usage for the German
                                            > > >?Vitzliputzli?, yet it seems that denoting the 1st C. hero by the
                                            > > name of
                                            > > >his 15th C. counterpart was simply too much. Why was this?
                                            > > Huitzilopochtli was the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs to
                                            > > whom
                                            > > multitudes were sacrificed in ritual murder, and before whose temple
                                            > > the
                                            > > famously immense skull-rack with its countless trophies was
                                            > > displayed.
                                            > > How could this have been the same person whom Steiner describes as the
                                            > > saviour of the Christ-impulse?
                                            > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > ////////
                                            > > Maybe it's not. Perhaps the sounds of "Vitzliputzli" were
                                            > > appropriated by the 15C demon God. Perhaps the translators thought
                                            > > that the sounds of Vitzliputzli were not accurately rendered in
                                            > > Huitzilopochtli who may be a totally different God anyway.
                                            >
                                            > I certainly do think that there was a complete inversion/corruption of
                                            > atributes of our initiate between 1st. C. V. and 16th C. H., and that it
                                            > is the same name that refers to two entirely different entities, much the
                                            > same as <Jesus> means many things to different people, for instance 1st.
                                            > C. gnostics or 16th C. Inquisitioners - or Spanish Conquistadors!
                                            >
                                            > > More importantly, you seem to suggest that Steiner confused
                                            > > Mesoamerican culture of the year 0 with Aztec culture 1000 years
                                            > > later, but I cannot find where he does so.
                                            >
                                            > I may have not been sufficiently explicit about this; I'll have to check
                                            > what I wrote. What I meant to say was that _insofar as he spoke as a
                                            > typically well-informed man of his time and place_, it would be inevitable
                                            > that he would tend to draw unwarranted inferences of similarity between
                                            > the Aztec culture and the 1st. C. AD culture whose events he describes.
                                            > Everyone else who lived then did, and many still do. What is more
                                            > important, however, is that we, insofar as we wish to understand his
                                            > meaning and intent, use what we now know about the history of Mesoamerica
                                            > to refine the detail of what he indicated. As they stand, his sketchy
                                            > 1916 remarks are unsatifactory for developing a nuanced modern
                                            > understanding of events in Mesoamerican culture.
                                            >
                                            > Specifically, Steiner's descriptions of the method of human sacrifice
                                            > practiced in the devolved mysteries, and the use of the words
                                            > <Tezcatlipoca>, <Quetzalcoatl>, these are all quite clearly Aztec-period
                                            > practices and nomenclature, as no evidence exists, even in our own time,
                                            > of these practices - as he describes them - or names existing in
                                            > pre-14th C. eras. As there is all evidence in support of this, and none
                                            > against it, it seems unreasonble to me to attempt to resolve the
                                            > difficulties by appeal to supposed supernatural powers of Dr. Steiner if
                                            > he himself does not invoke them. On the contrary, when he _does_ speak of
                                            > the method of the 1st. C. white magician/shaman, he invokes his initiate
                                            > skills three times in making reference to his <occult powers> and <occult
                                            > means>. And, indeed, in these instances, his communication seems to shift
                                            > into another gear altogether.
                                            > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > /////
                                            > > "Secondly, as we have alluded, there is the conflation of the time-
                                            > > periods
                                            > > involved; a problem that continues to plague modern researchers. Let
                                            > > us
                                            > > note the back jacket cover statement that appeared in the first
                                            > > English
                                            > > edition of Steiner?s lecture-cycle, as it illustrates the tendency
                                            > > within
                                            > > the context of our present focus: "
                                            > > "We hear of how [?] forces, opposed to humanity, threatened to reach a
                                            > > tragic climax in the bloody Aztec mysteries of ancient Mexico, until
                                            > > they
                                            > > were thwarted by the heroic efforts of a Mexican Sun-initiate."
                                            > > "Yet the fabulous Aztec episode in history is
                                            > > substituted for the unknown, but essential one which took place a
                                            > > millenia-and-a-half before! The simple fact that the Azteca entered
                                            > > the
                                            > > Valley of Mexico in the 14th Century, and only began their trajectory
                                            > > of
                                            > > Empire a hundred years later , much like the Inca, who also only
                                            > > enjoyed
                                            > > ascendance for a mere score of decades , has difficulty registering"
                                            > >
                                            > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > /////////////////////////////////
                                            > > I'm not sure, but if the essay refers exclusively to GA 171 Lectures
                                            > > 3 and 5 then I cannot find anywhere the word "Aztec" in the
                                            > > lectures. The back cover statement is not relevant.
                                            >
                                            > I found it relevant because it reflects a typical significant confusion in
                                            > the minds of those who read Steiner uncritically, a confusion that arises
                                            > because Steiner himself did not make the distinction clear.
                                            >
                                            > In the lecture of Sept. 24, Steienr says: <history tells of the fate
                                            > suffered by numerous Europeans who went to America after the discovery of
                                            > that continent. Many Europeans met their death at the hands of Mexican
                                            > priest-initiates who bound them to scaffold-like structures and cut out
                                            > their stomachs with expert skill. This is a matter of historical
                                            > knowledge, and it was an aftermath of what I have been describing to you.>
                                            >
                                            > Now, although he does not say the word <Aztec>, it is abundantly clear
                                            > from the context that it is the Azetc era and the Aztecs that he is
                                            > referring to. And it is false that the stomach-excision of captured
                                            > Spanish is matter of historical record. It may be true that
                                            > stomach-excision was practised in the secret confines of the temples -
                                            > after all, almost every other kind of imaginable torture was practised by
                                            > them, so why not stomach-removal, also? - but there is no historical
                                            > record of such. So, here, Steiner was flat wrong, and must have been
                                            > relying on either faulty reading of the Akasha, or relying on bad pop
                                            > journalism. Or the translator was at fault. At any rate, his statement
                                            > is wrong as it stands.
                                            >
                                            > > Why is he
                                            > > substituting 15 Century Azteca? Just because of the similiarity in
                                            > > names? But as I stated above, the similiarity in names doesn't
                                            > > necessarily show any confusion on RS's part. I don't even think that
                                            > > RS assumed a direct continuity between Aztec culture and the Mexican
                                            > > cultures of the year 0. He's basically only discussing the year 0
                                            > > cultures and not trying to draw any line between high Aztec and those
                                            > > early cultures.
                                            >
                                            > Well, I disagree. Steiner _must_ refer to 16th C. Aztec practices
                                            > because those were all that were known in his day. In the instance above,
                                            > he does exactly that. And so he does, since as I have shown, his
                                            > descriptions of Mesoamerican reeligious practices are close to
                                            > word-for-word with those as they appear in Heckethorn and in the Spanish
                                            > codices and records. He can't cite any practices outside of the supposed
                                            > stomach-excision which are unique to 1st. C. era cultures, and that one is
                                            > unique to Steiner.
                                            > I would like to be able to develop a scenario in which stomach-excision
                                            > could be justifiably contexted within the function and intent of the
                                            > Olmecs' own practices, and relate it to and explain more of what is known
                                            > about their rites or remains, say the cleaved celts, collosal heads, or
                                            > the were-jaguar figurines. This is still a far way off.
                                            > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > ///////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > "As Dr. Koslick observes in
                                            > > his Introduction to the lecture-cycle, there is a contradiction
                                            > > between
                                            > > Steiner?s statement that it was the stomach that was removed, and all
                                            > > other sources, both Aztec codices and Spanish records, which testify
                                            > > that
                                            > > it was the heart that was the object of excision. This contradiction
                                            > > has
                                            > > not resolved itself with time, and becomes even more complicated by
                                            > > the
                                            > > fact that Steiner does not acknowledge any practice of heart-removal,
                                            > > while Heckethorn, Steiner?s most evident source for his more
                                            > > circumstantial details, only refers to the accepted heart-removal"
                                            > > //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > ///////////////////////////////////////////////
                                            > > Since RS has been discussing practices of 2000 yrs ago, then why
                                            > > refer to the records of the later Aztecs?
                                            >
                                            > Because his descriptions so accurately mimic what people of his day
                                            > thought they knew about Mesoamerica as equalling the Azetcs - except for
                                            > the Maya, who were presumed to be idyllic folk ruled by peaceful gnostic
                                            > astrologer-contemplatives. ha.
                                            >
                                            > > Does stomach removal
                                            > > contradict anything we know about ritual sacrifice 2000 years ago?
                                            >
                                            > No, it does not, so it cannot be disproven, but that is a far way from
                                            > being able to confidently assert that Steiner was correct. I leave it as
                                            > a problem awaiting resolution.
                                            >
                                            > > I am no expert in this and I certainly believe Steiner should be read
                                            > > critically. I just don't see any contradictions between these
                                            > > lectures and other forms of knowledge that I'm aware of about
                                            > > mesoamerica.
                                            >
                                            > My attitude is that his indications regarding Vitzliputzli (however he
                                            > spelled his name!) are so significant that my advocacy of them shouldn't
                                            > be spoiled by any sloppy thinking - or evidence of sloppy thinking. This
                                            > material is not just for anthroposophists, who are justifiably inclined to
                                            > give Dr. Steiner the benefit of the doubt, but not always to Steiner's
                                            > ultimate benefit. People well-informed about matters Mesoamerican who
                                            > read Steiner on this, or my article about his remarks, are going to have
                                            > the same objections that I raise, and I don't want to get bogged down in
                                            > supporting the unsupportable - even though I personaly may also be able to
                                            > give him the benefit of the doubt.
                                            >
                                            > Thanks for the chance to explain myself; your questions are all very
                                            > pertinent, and we are in agreement if we concede that answers to many
                                            > questions are still pending, and need more research.
                                            >
                                            > In general, thank you again for your pointed questions and objections; I
                                            > shall continue to ponder them.
                                            >
                                            > Best Regards,
                                            >
                                            > Stephen
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > =====
                                            > Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities
                                            >
                                            > Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                            > ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan
                                            >
                                            > In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
                                            practice, there is.
                                            >
                                            > __________________________________________________
                                            > Do You Yahoo!?
                                            > Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                            > http://finance.yahoo.com
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > 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: 6.0.384 / Virus Database: 216 - Release Date: 8/21/2002
                                          • SRC
                                            ... And thank you for your replies and good will. Critical (not negative, just closely examined) review of Steiner s work is something conspicuous by its
                                            Message 21 of 22 , Sep 4, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear Ken:

                                              --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                                              > Stephen
                                              > Thank-you for answering my questions and your good will. I am new to
                                              > this topic and am looking forward to the continuation of your essay.

                                              And thank you for your replies and good will. Critical (not negative,
                                              just closely examined) review of Steiner's work is something conspicuous
                                              by its absence in AP circles, IMO. And look in the bibliographies of
                                              books by AP (my abbreviation for anthroposophical) authors: almost without
                                              exception, all the references are to other AP writers, most of whom parrot
                                              Steiner. Sure looks like a cult to an impartial outsider....

                                              > -I think that Steiner may seem unsympathetic to mesoamerican culture
                                              > because these lectures center on an Ahrimanic disturbance that was
                                              > left over from Atlantis. A disturbance that is still in effect and
                                              > which can have a negative influence on human evolution. A more
                                              > sympathetic and comprehensive view of mesoamerica was not the task at
                                              > hand.

                                              Yes, I think that explains it. Still, his limited remarks can give a
                                              false impression to the unthinking reader. Our problem, not his.

                                              > _Also, RS continually harped on the evil undercurrents that are
                                              > indigenous to all civilizations, especially Europe. Much of
                                              > anthroposophy concerns the illness of European culture-- utterly
                                              > decadent churches and cultures of dead materialistic superstition.
                                              > Recognition of evil in all of its forms and manifestations is
                                              > necessary for spiritual growth. His content was richer when
                                              > discussing Europe because that was his and his immediate followers'
                                              > enviroment.

                                              I agree with this, also. Still, a deep rut has been dug that obstructs
                                              access to positive aspects of American spiritual life for one who wants to
                                              go further with Steiner's method...just see what has - or hasn't been
                                              written about America in AP circles over the last 75 years.

                                              Sorry my replies are so short, I had a lightening strike on my building
                                              last evening, and things are still not up to speed...

                                              Stephen


                                              =====
                                              Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                                              Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                              ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                                              In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                                              __________________________________________________
                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                              Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                              http://finance.yahoo.com
                                            • SRC
                                              ... I ve been mulling over our exchanges and it seems that there are a couple (at least!) of levels of conversation going on. One is the nuts and bolts of
                                              Message 22 of 22 , Sep 5, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Kenneth and Bill:

                                                --- jackstrange11 <jackfreed@...> wrote:
                                                > Stephen
                                                > Thank-you for answering my questions....
                                                >
                                                > -I think that Steiner may seem....

                                                I've been mulling over our exchanges and it seems that there are a couple
                                                (at least!) of levels of conversation going on. One is the nuts and bolts
                                                of what Steiner did or did not say in GA 171; what he meant by what was
                                                transcribed of his lectures, etc., etc., etc. We may have talked that one
                                                out for the time being, since there's not all that much to work with
                                                anyway, certainly not enough to draw firm and obvious conclusions. Still,
                                                familiarity with the material is essential if one wants to maintain any
                                                kind of viable opinion....

                                                The other level is how de _we_ talk abaout Steiner. I mean, it is
                                                different if, on the one hand, we talk about him and what he said to other
                                                anthroposophists of good will, or even to credulous and naive
                                                anthroposophists who may tend to an attitude of belief, and, on the other
                                                hand, to reasonable and intelligent people of no particular persuasion who
                                                may not have even heard of Dr. Steiner.
                                                In the first instance, saying that Steiner knew what he knew because he
                                                was clairvoyant frequently answers all questions and silences all
                                                objections. While this may not be fair, either to Steiner or to the
                                                questioner, the possibility of its employment may frequently contribute to
                                                the rather sterile tone of many an anthroposophical discussion. Not here,
                                                thank god.

                                                With those who do not already <believe> in Steiner, this kind of attitude
                                                or rejoinder not only doesn't work, it will cause the one who uses it to
                                                immediately loose all credibility. And rightly so, because Steiner
                                                himself insisted over and over again that regardless of the privileged
                                                nature of the <sources> of his communications, their substance should
                                                stand on their own two feet and find their confimation in the
                                                rough-and-tumble world of normal discourse, evidence, and common sense.
                                                What I have tried to do in this (first part, only!) of my essay is to deal
                                                with Steiner's statements as if they were made by anyone else, and to try
                                                and understand their possible meanings and implications not only in
                                                relation to other statements of Steiner's, but also in relation to the
                                                general fund of information that human enterprise has generated about
                                                their ssubject matter.
                                                Other people have done this in other areas, but, to my knowledge, no one
                                                has tried to attempt this with what significant and mind-blowing remarks
                                                Steiner has made about Mesoamerica. I hope this is not true, and that my
                                                submissions here might stimulate someone to tell me who has previously
                                                tried to plow this furrow. In the meantime, since <Assumption Is The
                                                Mother Of All F*ckup> I have tried to be as rigourous as possible in
                                                examing Steiner's statements themselves before going on to draw
                                                conclusions from them. For those that simply take what Steiner says at
                                                face value, case closed, that may seem unecessary and even anti-Steiner,
                                                but if Rudolf Steiner's work is to enter the mainstream of modern
                                                cultivated discourse and escape the cultic ghetto into which his followers
                                                have unwittingly consigned him, his authority must proceed from, not
                                                preceed, his statements.

                                                So that's my attitude in dealing with his GA 171 material like I do.

                                                Best Regards,

                                                Stephen

                                                =====
                                                Just cooperate and everything will be OK: The Authorities

                                                Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big
                                                ones are kept secret by public incredulity. Marshall McLuhan

                                                In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

                                                __________________________________________________
                                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                                Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
                                                http://finance.yahoo.com
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.