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?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Pacbay" <pacbay@a...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: elaineupton2001 <elaineupton@h...>
> To: email@example.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
> what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
> follow Steiner´s teachings or not), and the differences, as you
> see them,between eXoteric and eSoteric Christianity.
> In general ways, I agree with much of what you both have said,
> yet I still have questions and what i suspect are (friendly)
> disagreements,which I may be able to articulate next week. I
> will not be online tomorrow (Sunday), but will sleep on all this
> 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.
> OK,just to take a minute now before I go--just to give you an
> one of my questions and views still: I´m not sure that I agree
> those who consciously follow anthroposophical
> (or that of Spiritual Science as taught by Steiner) or coming to
> more conscious knowledge of the Cosmos and Spirit World than many
> others who follow other Christian (or other) paths.