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

Re: [anthroposophy] A Modern Spiritual Path

Expand Messages
  • Pacbay
    Jeff: I really must ask myself why I continue this conversation but ...... I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it: HPB, Heindel, Manly
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
       
      Jeff: I really must ask myself why I continue this "conversation"  but ......
       
       
       
       
      I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it:  HPB, Heindel, Manly Hall, and others were not interested in creating a spiritual, cultural movement! They were educators and teachers who offered their work to inspire and educate others about spiritual subjects and philosophy. They left it up to the student do what they wanted in the real world.
       
      Steiner's mission (and as was asked of him by his Teacher and followers) was to create cultural initiatives. Bach did not study astronomy. He was here to offer music. Henry Ford was not a gardener; he was car manufacturer.  Cayce was not race car driver, he presented counseling and information to those who came to him on very limited basis.. Which brings up Cayce. Why don't you include him is your collective disappointment of other teachers. He did not create a movement as such. Comparing Steiner with others is like comparing Michelangelo with Shakespeare. Shakespheare was here to write not invent early concepts for airplanes and guns.
       
       
       
      >Pacbay>>...the TS and Heindel's work was not intended to start cultural movements or load people down with multiple choices for spiritual practice leading to confusion.
      *******Having the paths of eurythmy, anthroposophical medicine, Camphill Villages, Waldorf Schools, bio-dynamic farms etc. within our movement has yet to be observed to cause people 'confusion'. On the contrary, that's why so many different types of people can use it. And what use is a movement with no place for will-impulses, no healing of human beings, no educational reform, no new arts of movement and speech, no farms healing the earth? To produce books that look good on a shelf?
      I would predict that Heindel's Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception has out sold all of Steiner's basic books combined world wide. Of course, you will say, "quanitity is not quality" but see my other post about Christianity for this weak argument.


      >> this is the puzzle of modern esoteric movements- they continue to be heavy on teaching and philosophy and did not grasp the need for integrated practice.

      *******The ones you mention, yes---not anthroposophy. It's not just in the head.
      Are you kidding!! AP's are renown for being the most intellectual and "heady" spiritual practicioners in America and Europe. Go back out in the world and talk with those involved in spiritual pursuits and take a poll.



      >>>If I want to learn to grow vegetables , I would go to a Bio Dynamic center.... If I want to develop clairvoyance or safe entry into the spiritual worlds, I go to Knowledge of Higher Worlds and do the practices.


      *******Wrong. That's not an either/or. If one wishes to really understand the medicine, the agriculture, or whatever, you have to walk the spiritual path. That's why, when Steiner re-founded the Society 79 years ago, the School of Spiritual Science for contacting the Source was at its center and the various initiatives were made sections where this insight gained through the center would be applied. It is still working, regardless of how many people choose to not ally themselves with it or try to replace it with ersatz occultism and try to call that 'anthroposophy'. After all, large numbers aren't what matters, and certainly not at the expense of having any real content. I think our movement will have a great year ahead, and a great 21st century.

       
      Let's hope so. "Real content or not", (as opposed to ???) the world needs help from whatever corner it comes.
       
      JLA
       
       
       
       
       
       
       

       
      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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • DRStarman2001@aol.com
      ... ******I d say it s your judgement that whatever it is they experienced was so benevolent to them, but that s impossible to verify without observing the
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
        pacbay@... writes:
        If I were to live by this atavistic principle, several of my friends would be devoid of critical spiritual and psychological realizations that came early on in their pursuits in their 20's. Though Eastern in nature, they remain the most convincing and powerful seminal experiences of the spiritual that they have had since. This includes two who has worked with the AP and Rosicrucian path for over 30 years!! They are still waiting for "that breakthrough".
        Jeff

        ******I'd say it's your judgement that whatever it is they experienced was so benevolent to them, but that's impossible to verify without observing the individuals. Moreover, I've already found often that if people are still clinging to the effects of Luciferic experiences that affected them a lot in their 20s, whether from drugs or Eastern Yoga practices, they can't progress with the anthroposophic path until they undo the damage those have done--- and in fact, often can't even live a normal live in the practical world. That's how harmful those things are. That might explain why he the people you mention haven't succeeded with Anthroposophy for 30 years, because of what they did before that. I know some people who have found it after a lot of early drug use that are similarly weak.

           And that points up an additional reason for being absolutely precise in distinguishing the effects of the anthroposophical Path from others, for people who claim to be concerned about this movement and its public image -- -- -- so many sensible people, seeing others ruined by non-rational Eastern or drug stuff and rendered incapable of dealing with ordinary life in the modern world, have only a negative impression of 'mysticism' or 'metaphysics' from dealing with these poor souls, and so will not even consider Anthroposophy, confusing it with these things. It's more important than ever that we let people know that the true spiritual path for modern-day people has nothing to do with such. It is a fundamental teaching of Anthroposophy that one must be quite capable of dealing with this lower world before trying to master the higher.

           As for Stephen's assertion you responded to below, it is of course elementary psychology that all of us do indeed "reject" our childhood selves, and could not become competent adults without doing so. The childish psyche persisting into adulthood is a primary cause of schizophrenia. This pathological state, a "backward" one indeed, likewise has nothing to do with true spiritual development. In every healthy adult, it undergoes a metamorphosis, and must do so in order for the psyche to overcome adolescence.

        -Starman

        Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] A Modern Spiritual Path
        I appreciate your well-informed contributions on a thread which is showing
        some pernicious tendencies, specifically the <backward> thing.
        According to the logic of Starman and some others, one should also reject
        one's own childhood as <atavistic> or <backward>.  Yet we all know - or
        should know - about the vital and continuing importance of our early
        development, a development which is not <over>, but which continues to
        operate in a very lively fashion below the most recent layers of
        development. 
      • DRStarman2001@aol.com
        *******This is an anthroposophy list where we should be able to speak the truth without watering it down. pacbay@attbi.com writes: ... As to his opinion of
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
          *******This is an anthroposophy list where we should be able to speak the truth without watering it down.

          pacbay@... writes:

          I would suggest turning the hose on some of the concepts you and others may have about AP and rinse away the dust. AP means the wisdom of Man or that wisdom coming from the inner spiritual efforts of man. Wisdom is neither static or a hard rock that resists water. Water softens that which has been hardened..


          ******I would suggest reminding readers Jeff is not an anthroposophist, and that his goals are his own, not the movement's.

               As to his opinion of its value, I' can do know better then to refer us to Knowledge of the Higher
          Worlds, Chapter One:


          "It is not easy, at first, to believe that feelings like reverence and respect have anything to do with cognition. This is due to the fact that we are inclined to set cognition aside as a faculty by itself — one that stands in no relation to what otherwise occurs in the soul. In so thinking we do not bear in mind that it is the soul which exercises the faculty of cognition; and feelings are for the soul what food is for the body. If we give the body stones in place of bread, its activity will cease. It is the same with the soul. Veneration, homage, devotion are like nutriment making it healthy and strong, especially strong for the activity of cognition. Disrespect, antipathy, underestimation of what deserves recognition, all exert a paralyzing and withering effect on this faculty of cognition. "


        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
          pacbay@attbi.com writes: ... ******So much for the Christmas spirit! Well, maybe too much eggnog has made you have too much mucus, and therefore be a
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 2, 2003
            pacbay@... writes:

            I will put it in bold this time, so maybe you will read it: 



            ******So much for the Christmas spirit! Well, maybe too much eggnog has made you have too much mucus, and therefore be a trifle 'snotty'. It's OK -- -- -- it happens to the best of us. And you're not even running for president!


            >>>>HPB, Heindel, Manly Hall, and others were not interested in creating a

            spiritual, cultural movement! They were educators and teachers who offered their work to inspire and educate others about spiritual subjects and philosophy...


            *******I read it the first-time, and I still say it's quite wrong. The Theosophical Society started MANY  initiatives -- -- -- schools, experimental communities, churches. They've all collapsed, from the Theosophical Society schools in England to the "Liberal Catholic Church" that was supposedly going to revitalize religion. 
               Annie Besant was a socialist and a birth control pioneer. These people didn't want to affect the practical world around them? They just wanted to produce books on a shelf? You might be able to assert that about Manly Hall, but not William Quan Judge, Henry Olcott, C. W. Leadbeater, etc., etc.
               This is just your way of avoiding admitting the comparison of a failed movement with a successful one, but I think that is the case.
                More importantly, it ignores Steiner's clear teaching that the mere forces of the head cannot any longer truly reach the spiritual. A "spiritual movement" without a practical side where the will-forces are used is a contradiction in terms. It's not a spiritual movement if it tries to be something just in the head like in ancient Greece.




            Cayce. Why don't you include him is your collective disappointment of other teachers.
             
             
            *******I do. that Cayce organization was created for psychic research and healing, like their original hospital. These initiatives have largely come to nothing, because their source was flawed.  It's just an Edgar Cayce Museum now: except for the A. R. E. Clinic out in Arizona, nothing much has come from it.

            >Pacbay>>...the TS and Heindel's work was not intended to ... load people down with multiple choices for spiritual practice leading to confusion.

            *******Having the paths of eurythmy, anthroposophical medicine, Camphill Villages, Waldorf Schools, bio-dynamic farms etc. within our movement has yet to be observed to cause people 'confusion'. On the contrary, that's why so many different types of people can use it. And what use is a movement with no place for will-impulses, no healing of human beings, no educational reform, no new arts of movement and speech, no farms healing the earth?

            I would predict that Heindel's Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception has out sold all of Steiner's basic books combined world wide. Of course, you will say, "quanitity is not quality" but see my other post about Christianity for this weak argument.

            *******It's far from a weak argument, Jeff. You're always talking about what's "popular" and trying to get anthroposophists to change so that the movement will be "more popular". Well, I'm sorry, but there is no "punk rock" or "Howard Stern" version of Anthroposophy, and there never will be, because it's based on higher development of thinking and feeling which the masses will not embrace for millennia. Cride and false versions of occultism will always sell better, because they don't require will forces from lazy people. However, it doesn't matter how many books Polyester Crowley sells, because ultimately they do nothing for people, and so people will always still be seeking the real thing. Fake imitations of genuine occultism are like Chinese food: an hour after you take it in, you're hungry again.

                When they're ready, they'll find it.

                Moreover, you show that you either did not understand my response or just wanted to dodge it: what can people DO with Heindel's imitation "Steiner Lite" except read books and talk? That's no different than other occultism that doesn't really do anything for a person because it's only from the head, not the Spirit.  Where is anything for human spirits to take up and be productive with? Where is the Art?   After all, one picture is worth a thousand words.

               And finally, I'd be willing to bet that Heindel's little "Outline of Occult Science" rip-off has sold nowhere near as many copies as the basic books of Rudolf Steiner, anyway. The Oceanside Rosicrucians have not even been as successful as the San Jose ones.



            >>this is the puzzle of modern esoteric movements- they continue to be heavy on teaching and philosophy and did not grasp the need for integrated practice.

            *******The ones you mention, yes---not anthroposophy. It's not just in the head.


            Are you kidding!! AP's are renown for being the most intellectual and "heady" spiritual practicioners in America and Europe. Go back out in the world and talk with those involved in spiritual pursuits and take a poll.

            *******Since most so-called "spiritual" movements are mere "feeling mysticism", where Anthroposophy instead is a path starting from thinking, naturally their opinions can be predicted. Others are perfectly free to pursue their own paths, and to proclaim them superior. But their opinions are what is truly "only from the head".  

               Find some anthroposophists living only in their heads in a Waldorf school dealing with high-energy kids, or at Weleda making herbal preparations, or on a biodynamic farm pitching manure into a compost heap, or learning forms in Eurythmy, or in a thousand other places.

                Merely because it HAS a thinking component, I'd say that emotional mystics  would always find it "too intellectual". It's because of what they do with what they read, converting it into mere intellectualism, because they cannot link any will forces with their use of the mind. Doing so is the reason for the artistic or creative component of the modern spiritual Path.

            Dr. Starman
            http://www.DrStarman.net
          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
            pacbay@attbi.com writes, implying all anthroposophists have something wrong with them because they hold fast to some
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 3, 2003
              pacbay@... writes, implying all anthroposophists have something wrong with them because they hold fast to some definite, specific principles we discussed, and need to become what in his judgement is better :
              I would suggest turning the hose on some of the concepts you and others may have about AP and rinse away the dust. AP means the wisdom of Man or that wisdom coming from the inner spiritual efforts of man. Wisdom is neither static or a hard rock that resists water. Water softens that which has been hardened.

              I responded:
              Knowledge of the Higher
              Worlds, Chapter One:

              "It is not easy, at first, to believe that feelings like reverence and respect have anything to do with cognition. This is due to the fact that we are inclined to set cognition aside as a faculty by itself — one that stands in no relation to what otherwise occurs in the soul. In so thinking we do not bear in mind that it is the soul which exercises the faculty of cognition; and feelings are for the soul what food is for the body. If we give the body stones in place of bread, its activity will cease. It is the same with the soul. Veneration, homage, devotion are like nutriment making it healthy and strong, especially strong for the activity of cognition. Disrespect, antipathy, underestimation of what deserves recognition, all exert a paralyzing and withering effect on this faculty of cognition. "


              His Response:
              " Truth always rises higher than belief and veneration of something that one does not really know or may be wrong and create insecurity if examined...
               
              Steiner: "....spiritual perceptions are not infallible....
              It would be disastrous for Spiritual Science if he who cannot yet see into the spiritual world were obliged to accept on blind faith what he is told."


              *******This is getting boring, because you posted the same old quotes and I made the same response once before, and you clearly are not listening. But some others on the list may be-- -- -- so, here is Steiner once again in his book Theosophy, final chapter:

              To him who asks, “How can I gain personal knowledge of the higher truths of spiritual science?” the answer must be given, “Begin by making yourself acquainted with what is communicated by others concerning such knowledge.” Should he reply, “I wish to see for myself; I do not wish to know anything about what others have seen,” one must answer, “It is in the very assimilating of the communications of others that the first step towards personal knowledge consists.” If he then should answer, “Then I am forced to have blind faith to begin with,” one can only reply, “In regard to something communicated it is not a case of belief or unbelief, but merely of an unprejudiced assimilation of what one hears.” The true spiritual researcher never speaks with the expectation of meeting blind faith in what he says. He merely says, “I have experienced this in the spiritual regions of existence and I narrate my experiences.” He knows also that the reception of these experiences by another and the permeation of his thoughts with such an account are living forces making for spiritual development.


                *******
              So the "blind faith" objection is fully answered -- -- --it's not having blind faith in the communications of spiritual science to THINK them, instead of arguing with them and refusing to take them in to your soul. So, OK, Jeff, to you Anthroposophy is something which " one does not really know or may be wrong ", and so you refuse to work with it but instead hold it apart from you. That's too bad-- -- -- but it's not the case with others of us here on a discussion list for Anthroposophy. We know it, and know that it's not wrong, so we're not in the same situation as you. You can try to imply that you know better than Rudolf Steiner and that all of us may be wrong all you want, but it shows only that you have not committed to it and so don't know it from the inside.

                  There is an enormous difference between saying Dr. Steiner was not infallible-- -- -- which is a straw man, as no one here has ever said that, Jeff, as you well know -- -- -- and using that to assert that ANY statements by ANYONE saying ANYTHING (including things flatly opposed to spiritual scientific principles), should be accepted as part of an exaggerated idea of 'tolerance'. Any of us taking up this spiritual path can prove things Steiner said from our own experience. I guess your tactic is to make it appear as if only Rudolf Steiner had these experiences because you are unable to, but this is quite false. Anyone can do so who uses the correct methods.

                  You've once again provided an example of "undervaluing of what deserves recognition"; perhaps next time you could say something specific about a modern spiritual path besides contempt for anything definite Rudolph Steiner had to say about it. Instead of a negative,  saying what a modern spiritual path is not (which is, anything definite and specific), perhaps you could provide us with a positive, meaning what you think it IS.
                  Unless the the only motive is to bog down discussion because you don't like the direction it might go in, in which case I will no longer respond.

              Dr. Starman

              http://www.DrStarman.net

            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.