Re: [anthroposophy] Re: RS on * today's * ISLAM
- Folks, please forgive the somewhat personal nature of this post.I have been wanting to write to Bradford privately for a whilebut since he approached the topic on this list, I feel it is onlyright to reply in kind. You may feel more comfortable simplydeleting this rather than having to wade through the somewhatcloistered subject matter.BRSir Bradford...
Let me start by telling you how much I appreciate your gift.
You have an overview of synchronicities and harmonics that
could only be attributed to one with Vision...(note the capital 'V')
Furthermore, I find little to disagree with in your colorful writings.
In principle, I don't wholly disagree with your position in this
post in regards to the geo-political situation of America and it's
approach to her perceived enemies.
Yet, there are points in which we don't quite see eye to eye...
(nor is it even necessary that we do, except that it is natural
to seek to be understood as well as to understand)
First, I am not a fundamentalist. (Fundamentalists are those who
point the crooked finger of accusation at weirdoes like myself whowalk into a Seven-Eleven wearing a wizard costume, on our way toperform at the Renaissance Faire.But two years ago, I had a major metanoia concerning this.It was so major...and so subjective, that I can't even discuss itwithout diluting it's meaning.It was so upturning that my muse, Ariel, left me for a whole yearbecause of the volcanic recognition of my overplus of Ideality inrelation to Reality. I was paralyzed musically, and for one whohas fed his family for 40 years with the fruits of melody, you canimagine how upsetting this was...not only for me but for my wholetribe. Zanoni was fully eclipsed by Mejnour..... and as one whoperpetually inhabited the flowered heights of La La Land, I hated it.I have since recognized the fine line between being a 'fundamentalist'and acknowledging the periodic necessity of returning to the'fundamentals' of something. I generally dislike 'progressive jazz'because it often departs too severely from the fundamentalheart of the melody.In my view, this same pathology often extends to Anthroposophistsin relation to the Heart of the Christ Being and the beginning of theconcert as it was written 2000 years ago, at the Hub of Time..and timing.Christianity as a melody has an infinitely simple (as well as an infinitelycomplex) structure. Right now I am in the mode of gleaning the OriginalMelody as interpreted by some of the more traditional avenues likeCatholicism, Tomberg, Orthodoxy, etc. (I've always done everythingbackward....Similarly, I have played 'by ear' my whole life...and amonly now getting around to learning to read music :-)As a 'New Ager,' I took pride in my ability to play all the different'concerts of philosophy' at the same time but eventually found I wasbecoming so "spiritually well rounded" that I wasn't really going anywhere.I have since learned (for me) the value of sticking with Vivaldi on Mondaynight and saving Bach until Tuesday.Now to politics.George Bush is not as stupid as I originally thought. In spite of hisinarticulation ('nukular' instead of nuclear, et al) he seems to have a handleon the fundaments of the American Spirit. Yes, he is too prone to backentrepreneur and corporate culture at the expense of the weak, the poorthe homeless, etc but this is the urgency of the zeitgeist, methinks. Thependulum will swing back...it always doesWhat Bush DOES have, perhaps unconsciously, is a knowledge of'as above, so below.' "Patriotism," it is said, "is the last refuge of ascoundrel."Perhaps...but leftists who protesteth too much don't yet realize thata cell which too often condemns the very body that gives it succor,eventually becomes subject to the very 'bacteria cops' which willexpel it from the whole body.The fact is, that any freedom that exists in the West today is the resultof those who lovingly sacrificed themselves on the Plains of Pelinore.No, this isn't the Ideal...but it is the reality of the situation.I am not saying to attack Iraq...but what I AM saying is that wemust be realistic in our approach to Evil. We can simply be'Gary Goodguy' and trust that as the Etheric Christ descends allthese things will work themselves out...and ultimately this is true.But I wholeheartedly believe that in order to be able to align ourmolecules to the descending Oversoul of Redemption, we mustunderstand what the essence of Christianity is.In my mind and heart, I see it as quite simply the pursuit ofCosmic Beauty.Yet what makes the melody beautiful is the resolutionof the discordant notes into the 'ah ha' of the harmonious.We nevertheless need the discordants. Without themthe melody would be all tonics and hence too sweet.The roses likewise can't bloom unless they are subjected to thepruning shears of the master gardener.....nor can we humans donour Wedding Garments until we have descended into the hell ofthe crucifixion to liberate the sparks entrapped there.This is what has made America so great. She has put hermoney where her mouth is and courageously entered the frayagainst those Orcs and tyrannical forces which have threatenedthe freedoms of the innocents.The only times we have failed at this is when we had fissuresin our collective will and didn't deal with the problem 100% ...Like we didn't in Somalia...like we didn't in Vietnam.If we were truly the UNITED States....not divided... but 100% intothe deterrence of tyranny, there would be no need for war in thefirst place."Be ye hot or be ye cold..."When will we have the courage to recognize our destiny as theleader of the world's impulse toward Freedom?Bravely seizing the scepter of power in order to lead in this is notthe same as a mere bullying arrogance.War is the result of our own fragmented intent, pictured outwardlyupon the screen of Creation.I'm sure I won't be changing your mind here Bradford, but I did feel theneed to at least attempt a deeper understanding of my non-fundamentalistposition.By the way, I just saw a Kurdish diplomat on TV relating the continuoustorture and subjugation from the hands of Saddam. This is no moreacceptable than the Taliban's torture of women, Milosevic's torturous barbarismagainst the Bosnians nor Hitler's massacres of the many millions upon his blackaltar.We must fearlessly approach Mt. Doom and face these shells whichseek to undermine The Love of the Christos.....and not bend to the sinistertemptation of mere appeasement.This is my view...and I understand that honest men and women can disagreeabout these things. I also understand that only history will tell if we were rightin our collective geo-political actions.But whether it be for war or for peace...I pray that we act as One Will inour movement. Only this can assure the victory of either path.As of now, it looks as if our congress and allies are coalescing behindtaking out Saddam. If this could be done without war, all the better....but be done it must. Saddamy cannot be toleratedThanks for reading this, my creative friend.Br. Ron
- Hello Marc (new to me), and all on this thread,
You ask questions about Ibrahim Abouleish and what he might or might
not say (or have said) in a talk at the Goetheanum about Islam and
Christianity, Mohammed and Christ. I have no direct answer to your
question, and neither can I comment directly on the controversial
Pietro Archiati's role in reporting this.--I can only say that it is
best to go to the source. Ibrahim Abouleish is, as far as I know (and
I know from a close friend, which is still second-hand knowing)
highly regarded in places in Egypt. His work at Sekem has been highly
praised and I have seen some of the results, when I lived in Africa
(biodynamic work, etc. in a large community). But check out Sekem
(Egypt's) website, and research more for yourself on Abouleish. I
know that he and another anthroposophic friend of mine are
translating the Koran...and I also read the statement from Sekem,
after 9/11, a statement of peace and good wishes to the U.S.
More at present I cannot say, but I do suggest you go to the source--
the Vorstand and Abouleish, not Archiat, even though he may be
--- In anthroposophy@y..., brocartmarc@a... wrote:
> Hello you all,
> I have read some days ago a leaflet issued seemingly by Pietro
> quoting the same lecture in connection with Dr Ibrahim Abuleish
> by the Vorstand to speak before the Goetheanum's audience in 1995
and 2001 at
> the "Religions of the world" session.
> In his book "Islam und Anthroposophie " issued at the Verlag am
> under the supervision of Virginia Sease, Dr Ibrahim Abuleish tries
> those two streams together . For him , Jesus was the bearer of the
> impulse and could then be called Jesus Christ, and Muhammad 700
> as the new bearer of the Christ impulse could then be called
> Abouleish's wiew implies the Second Coming of Christ was
Muhammad , and the
> goals of christianism to be fulfilled by islam.(!)
> Archiati states that if Abuleish is free to express what he
thinks , the
> Vorstand should not give audience to such an antinomy of
> Christianism, and moreover has to take a clear position , instead
> it a seal of authenticity.
> Has anyone heard of a statement of the Vorstand on this subject ?
> Best regards