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

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

Expand Messages
    ... From: To: Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:06 AM Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: does one need to
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <elaineupton@...>
      To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:06 AM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: does one need to be an anthroposophist to be an

      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.

      About Mother Therese, I'll tell you the following story.
      Our "anthro-scaligerian" movement after Scaligero's death(1980) has been
      headed by an extrordinary female Human Being, namely Mimma Benvenuti
      (1926-1990) who was , tall (?) like Mother Therese.
      A day in 1983, early in the morning, Mimma and Therese met in Rome and the
      Mother gave Mimma a "Christ-inspired" message about our movement's inner
      work: pls imagine these two "tiny women b"oth rapresentatives of two
      apparently different Christian Streams meeting together and perceiveing
      each other the Christ in the "other"..............

      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?

      A: See above.

      Or are both incomplete and awaiting further incarnations?


      --- 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
      > what is an Anthropop, who is in the Michael School (whether they
      > follow SteinerĀ“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.
      > 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: IĀ“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.

      List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.