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

Re: [anthroposophy] does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist?

Expand Messages
  • Pacbay
    I couldn t agree more and I was simply expanding on the Christian issues in Elaine s post. Personally, I would like to identify the Christ with another name
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 1 9:02 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      I couldn't agree more and I was simply expanding on the Christian issues in Elaine's post. Personally, I would like to identify the Christ with another "name" or designation and free ourselves of the mental entanglements of conventional Christianity and its confusing history. Many would be shocked to know that their connection the Christ or Jesus is not as pure and direct as they think. How could it with over 5000 denominations of Christianity! 
       
       We are all "sun beings" as the sun shines on all of us daily and likewise we are all Christ influenced for the same reason no matter what we choose as our spiritual path. But to have a direct connection with this Being's influence, one must transcend "religion" and faith to an extent. Without this freedom from bias or presumption, we are bound by "isms" which cloud our vision of the truth. I agree also that one does not have to be Christ oriented, at first, to discover universal spiritual truths. I came into western esotericism this way in my 20's. And I am sure there are many of the Michael school who are have been born in the 60's and 70's who are going to come to it from different perspectives and it will not necessarily be affiliated with  AP or paths that we know now. We can only look forward to a rich and diverse expression of spirituality in the near future- hopefully.
       
      Jeff
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 3:29 AM
      Subject: R: [anthroposophy] does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist?

      Dear Elaine and Jeff,
      In a thread like this , like you are posting it,we run  firstly a risk.
      The risk is to say " ok the Christ is the Path, the Truth and the Life so
      everything Christian fits good and we're all the same."
      We have, on the contrary, if we experience  ourselves as  Michael School's
      disciples and servants , the duty to be clear about what we are or, about,
      we believe we are.
      There is a spiritual question to put.
      What's the difference between the ordinary Christian path (Catholic or
    • elaineupton2001 <elaineupton@hotmail.com>
      Dear Jeff and Andrea, I am reading your replies, and I thank you very much for writing on what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 1 4:53 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Jeff and Andrea,

        I am reading your replies, and I thank you very much for writing on
        what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
        follow Steiner´s teachings or not), and the differences, as you each
        see them,between eXoteric and eSoteric Christianity.

        In general ways, I agree with much of what you both have said, and
        yet I still have questions and what i suspect are (friendly)
        disagreements,which I may be able to articulate next week. I probably
        will not be online tomorrow (Sunday), but will sleep on all this over
        the next nights til early next week , perhaps.

        OK,just to take a minute now before I go--just to give you an idea of
        one of my questions and views still: I´m not sure that I agree that
        those who consciously follow anthroposophical terminology,methodology
        (or that of Spiritual Science as taught by Steiner) or coming to any
        more conscious knowledge of the Cosmos and Spirit World than many
        others who follow other Christian (or other) paths. Many of these
        souls have tremendous insights, tremendous, and do wonderful work in
        the world. They just use different terms than Steiner-ites or
        anthropops.These terms,the languages,do make a difference, of
        course,i feel,but the difference is not,as i see it,one of
        inferiority or that they are less conscious(I refer to certain
        enlightened ones, not to your everyday unconscious casual Christian
        or Muslim or Jew or Buddhist, etc.).

        So,I would question of those who follow what they/we term the Michael
        School or term ¨Spiritual Science¨really have something ¨plus¨, as
        one of you put it. I don´t see this when I look around in the world
        of those who are really dedicated to their spiritual path, those who
        are quite advanced.

        Maybe I´ll give examples next time.

        At any rate,whether we agree or disagree,keep the discussion coming.
        I will read you and find your posts helpful!

        With thanks,
        elaine
      • Pacbay
        ... From: elaineupton2001 To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:53 PM Subject: [anthroposophy] Re:
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 1 5:15 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:53 PM
          Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist?

          Dear Jeff and Andrea,

          I am reading your replies, and I thank you very much for writing on
          what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
          follow Steiner´s teachings or not), and the differences, as you each
          see them,between eXoteric and eSoteric Christianity.

          In general ways, I agree with much of what you both have said, and
          yet I still have questions and what i suspect are (friendly)
          disagreements,which I may be able to articulate next week. I probably
          will not be online tomorrow (Sunday), but will sleep on all this over
          the next nights til early next week , perhaps.
           
          Fine. I will await your reply. And I would say also that a Rosicrucian training will produce precisely the same soul qualities and clear objective visionary abilities as Anthroposophy. This has been demonstrated by other seers on this path. The work of Markides (the Magus series depicting the life and teaching of a Mediterranean esoteric teacher) also indicates that other paths and schools allow for a similar type of knowledge and vision. What may not be possible without AP are finer distinctions and recognition of other central forces and beings like the interplay of Ahriman and Lucifer. No one has mentioned this dual relationship and it is a one contribution that AP training does provide. This would be essential for clear seeing and knowledge when one does enter into direct spiritual realms. And this again points out the real differences between major esoteric paths and lesser ones. The fullness of knowledge and the overview presented in the present Michael movements are unmatched elsewhere. But again this is just on the knowledge side. This is not real spirituality until it manifests in the soul and in the world as self evident qualities of the spirit (and not just in the "head".). I have seen so many people on this path who can expound for hours from their understanding and study but cannot sit for a hour in complete solitude or listen attentively without judgment or bias to another in distress or work in a soup kitchen with the poor.  
           
          Jeff


          OK,just to take a minute now before I go--just to give you an idea of
          one of my questions and views still: I´m not sure that I agree that
          those who consciously follow anthroposophical terminology,methodology
          (or that of Spiritual Science as taught by Steiner) or coming to any
          more conscious knowledge of the Cosmos and Spirit World than many
          others who follow other Christian (or other) paths.
        • elaineupton2001 <elaineupton@hotmail.com>
          Hello Jeff, Andrea, and any interested, Thanks, guys, for keeping on with the discussion. I want to be as clear as I can in reply. The question of whether
          Message 4 of 4 , Feb 3 3:06 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hello Jeff, Andrea, and any interested,


            Thanks, guys, for keeping on with the discussion. I want to be as
            clear as I can in reply.

            The question of whether those who follow spiritual paths that are not
            outwardly called Michaelic or outwardly called an anthroposophically
            inspired or spiritual science path are just as capable of initiation
            and higher realizations as the, for short hand, "anthropops" is one
            we are discussing.

            One of you wrote also about being judgemental of others or not. Good
            area to discuss, I feel.

            I said I would try to reply with some concrete examples of people,
            say outwardly non "anthropops", on a spiritual path. Let's take
            Mother Teresa or the venerable monk Thich Nhat Hanh, or maybe others.

            Anthropops can talk about "consciousness soul" and epochs and such
            that Mother T. does not talk about, and yet she does the WORK of
            compassion, so I think both she and the anthropops have something,
            but is one better than the other?

            Or are both incomplete and awaiting further incarnations?

            Blessings,
            elaine

            --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "Pacbay" <pacbay@a...> wrote:
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: elaineupton2001 <elaineupton@h...>
            > To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
            > Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 4:53 PM
            > Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: does one need to be an
            anthroposophist to be an anthroposophist?
            >
            >
            > Dear Jeff and Andrea,
            >
            > I am reading your replies, and I thank you very much for writing
            on
            > what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
            > follow Steiner´s teachings or not), and the differences, as you
            each
            > see them,between eXoteric and eSoteric Christianity.
            >
            > In general ways, I agree with much of what you both have said,
            and
            > yet I still have questions and what i suspect are (friendly)
            > disagreements,which I may be able to articulate next week. I
            probably
            > will not be online tomorrow (Sunday), but will sleep on all this
            over
            > the next nights til early next week , perhaps.
            >
            > Fine. I will await your reply. And I would say also that a
            Rosicrucian training will produce precisely the same soul qualities
            and clear objective visionary abilities as Anthroposophy. This has
            been demonstrated by other seers on this path. The work of Markides
            (the Magus series depicting the life and teaching of a Mediterranean
            esoteric teacher) also indicates that other paths and schools allow
            for a similar type of knowledge and vision. What may not be possible
            without AP are finer distinctions and recognition of other central
            forces and beings like the interplay of Ahriman and Lucifer. No one
            has mentioned this dual relationship and it is a one contribution
            that AP training does provide. This would be essential for clear
            seeing and knowledge when one does enter into direct spiritual
            realms. And this again points out the real differences between major
            esoteric paths and lesser ones. The fullness of knowledge and the
            overview presented in the present Michael movements are unmatched
            elsewhere. But again this is just on the knowledge side. This is not
            real spirituality until it manifests in the soul and in the world as
            self evident qualities of the spirit (and not just in the "head".). I
            have seen so many people on this path who can expound for hours from
            their understanding and study but cannot sit for a hour in complete
            solitude or listen attentively without judgment or bias to another in
            distress or work in a soup kitchen with the poor.
            >
            > Jeff
            >
            >
            > OK,just to take a minute now before I go--just to give you an
            idea of
            > one of my questions and views still: I´m not sure that I agree
            that
            > those who consciously follow anthroposophical
            terminology,methodology
            > (or that of Spiritual Science as taught by Steiner) or coming to
            any
            > more conscious knowledge of the Cosmos and Spirit World than many
            > others who follow other Christian (or other) paths.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.