R: [anthroposophy] does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist?
- Dear Elaine and Jeff,
and all on this thread
Elaine posted also the question about the concept of "backward" in Spiritual
First of all either RS or his best followers never used such a concept in a
depreciatory or racist way. Needless to say: who uses the concept in these
ways is NOT an anthroposophist , whatever else he is able to put on the desk
of the Anthroposophical discussions.
The concept of "backward" in itself is a basic issue in the imagine of the
Evolution as depicted by Steiner and his followers, linked in deep with
several core concepts as "Good", "Evil" and so on. Those concepts got their
source in the Spiritual research and must be grasped in such a framework: no
need to be "believed" as a dogmatic issue.
In the above said researches the concept of "backward" , either of
Spiritual Beings or about cultural and political stream and ideas, is rooted
in the basic fact of History: the Evolution is a fight of Gods fought
mostly inside Mankind as battlefield, whereas Mankind is to be understood
either in inner or in outer sense.
Steiner gave insights about it all along his work: I believe "Leading
Thoughts" as the best "Highway to run" in order to grasp, by the pictures
of Michael-Ahriman struggle events, what's the real meaning of such a
I use the word "puzzling" since there are lots of risks in using a concept
like this, first of all to become "easy judges" about cultural and spiritual
streams of which we have only a partial experience or, secondly and in the
opposite by refusing the concept .
In this case we run the risk of "the night in which all the cows are grey"
when we say that "every spiritual stream is on the same level" so ,in the
end, here we just succeed in throwing off the child with the bath's water.
Once more : it's a matter of balance like everything else in the "World of
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 11:02 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy] does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an
> Hello dear list members,
> Does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist? Does
> one need to be an anthroposophist in order to be on the path to the
> highest truth? And other such questions.....
> Some traditions call great souls "Initiates". Some call them
> Bodhissatvas. Some call them Saints. Maybe these words don't all mean
> the same, but somehow they are related. Does one have to be an
> anthroposophist to be an Initiate? Are terms like "saint" or
> "bodhissatva" anachronistic or of little use to anthropops?
> Does one have to speak of Mary (Maria, Miriam or other translations
> of Mary) in order to be anthroposophically correct? What of Nuestra
> Senora de Guadelupe, for example?
> "Christ Being." If I understand "lightsearcher" this term strikes him
> (or her) as cold, not the address one would use for a friend.
> Anthroposophists often refer to the "Christ Being." Does the name
> matter? Do anthroposophists only have the right connection to this
> "Being" or Friend?
> Are conventional "Christians"--Quakers, Catholics, Presbyterians,
> Episcopalians or Anglicans, etc., as well as Jews, Sufis, Buddhists,
> Pagans(Earth based religions), etc. retarded, retrograde,
> anachronisms and such?
> Here's part of a story that's in the news lately:
> "Sister Antonia Brenner: Smiling Angel of Mercy"
> "Everyday, Sister Antonia Brenner touches the life, mind, and heart
> of someone in desperate need. Every day she impacts the future of
> another human being. ..."
> She lives in a prison cell in Mexico and works with prisoners every
> Is she a great one or not?
> List owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/