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

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: RS on * today's * ISLAM

Expand Messages
  • Br. Ron
    Folks, please forgive the somewhat personal nature of this post. I have been wanting to write to Bradford privately for a while but since he approached the
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 6, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Folks, please forgive the somewhat personal nature of this post.
      I have been wanting to write to Bradford privately for a while
      but since he approached the topic on this list, I feel it is only
      right to reply in kind. You may feel more comfortable simply
      deleting this rather than having to wade through the somewhat
      cloistered subject matter. 
      Sir 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 who
      walk into a Seven-Eleven wearing a wizard costume, on our way to
      perform 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 it
      without diluting it's meaning.
      It was so upturning that my muse, Ariel, left me for a whole year
      because of the volcanic recognition of my overplus of Ideality in
      relation to Reality. I was paralyzed musically, and for one who
      has fed his family for 40 years with the fruits of melody, you can
      imagine how upsetting this was...not only for me but for my whole
      tribe. Zanoni was fully eclipsed by Mejnour..... and as one who
      perpetually 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 fundamental
      heart of the melody.
      In my view, this same pathology often extends to Anthroposophists
      in relation to the Heart of the Christ Being and the beginning of the
      concert 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 infinitely
      complex) structure. Right now I am in the mode of gleaning the Original
      Melody as interpreted by some of the more traditional avenues like
      Catholicism, Tomberg, Orthodoxy, etc. (I've always done everything
      backward....Similarly, I have played 'by ear' my whole life...and am
      only 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 was 
      becoming so "spiritually well rounded" that I wasn't really going anywhere.
      I have since learned (for me) the value of sticking with Vivaldi on Monday
      night and saving Bach until Tuesday.
      Now to politics.
      George Bush is not as stupid as I originally thought. In spite of his
      inarticulation ('nukular' instead of nuclear, et al) he seems to have a handle
      on the fundaments of the American Spirit. Yes, he is too prone to back
      entrepreneur and corporate culture at the expense of the weak, the poor
      the homeless, etc but this is the urgency of the zeitgeist, methinks. The
      pendulum will swing back...it always does
      What Bush DOES have, perhaps unconsciously, is a knowledge of
      'as above, so below.'  "Patriotism," it is said, "is the last refuge of a
      Perhaps...but leftists who protesteth too much don't yet realize that
      a cell which too often condemns the very body that gives it succor,
      eventually becomes subject to the very 'bacteria cops' which will
      expel it from the whole body.
      The fact is, that any freedom that exists in the West today is the result
      of 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 we
      must be realistic in our approach to Evil. We can simply be
      'Gary Goodguy' and trust that as the Etheric Christ descends all
      these things will work themselves out...and ultimately this is true.
      But I wholeheartedly believe that in order to be able to align our
      molecules to the descending Oversoul of Redemption, we must
      understand what the essence of Christianity is.
      In my mind and heart, I see it as quite simply the pursuit of
      Cosmic Beauty.
      Yet what makes the melody beautiful is the resolution
      of the discordant notes into the 'ah ha' of the harmonious.
      We nevertheless need the discordants. Without them
      the melody would be all tonics and hence too sweet.
      The roses likewise can't bloom unless they are subjected to the
      pruning shears of the master gardener.....nor can we humans don
      our Wedding Garments until we have descended into the hell of
      the crucifixion to liberate the sparks entrapped there.
      This is what has made America so great. She has put her
      money where her mouth is and courageously entered the fray
      against those Orcs and tyrannical forces which have threatened
      the freedoms of the innocents.
      The only times we have failed at this is when we had fissures
      in 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% into
      the deterrence of tyranny, there would be no need for war in the
      first place.
      "Be ye hot or be ye cold..."
      When will we have the courage to recognize our destiny as the
      leader of the world's impulse toward Freedom?
      Bravely seizing the scepter of power in order to lead in this is not
      the same as a mere bullying arrogance.
      War is the result of our own fragmented intent, pictured outwardly
      upon the screen of Creation.
      I'm sure I won't be changing your mind here Bradford, but I did feel the
      need to at least attempt a deeper understanding of my non-fundamentalist
      By the way, I just saw a Kurdish diplomat on TV relating the continuous
      torture and subjugation from the hands of Saddam. This is no more
      acceptable than the Taliban's torture of women, Milosevic's torturous barbarism
      against the Bosnians nor Hitler's massacres of the many millions upon his black
      We must fearlessly approach Mt. Doom and face these shells which
      seek to undermine The Love of the Christos.....and not bend to the sinister
      temptation of mere appeasement.
      This is my view...and I understand that honest men and women can disagree
      about these things. I also understand that only history will tell if we were right
      in our collective geo-political actions.
      But whether it be for war or for peace...I pray that we act as One Will in
      our movement. Only this can assure the victory of either path.
      As of now, it looks as if our congress and allies are coalescing behind
      taking out Saddam. If this could be done without war, all the better....
      but be done it must. Saddamy cannot be tolerated
      Thanks for reading this, my creative friend.
      Br. Ron
    • elaineupton2001
      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
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 7, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        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
        being invited
        > 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
        to tie
        > those two streams together . For him , Jesus was the bearer of the
        > impulse and could then be called Jesus Christ, and Muhammad 700
        years later
        > as the new bearer of the Christ impulse could then be called
        > Christ.
        > 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
        Anthroposophy and
        > Christianism, and moreover has to take a clear position , instead
        of giving
        > it a seal of authenticity.
        > Has anyone heard of a statement of the Vorstand on this subject ?
        > Best regards
        > Marc
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.