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

NEWS: Emmerich texts ONLINE ! ! !

Expand Messages
  • lightsearcher1
    Just this hour found the TEXT of Anne Catherine Emmerich s Life and Passion of Jesus Christ accessible ONLINE ! Wonderful to have this accessible 24/7 –
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Just this hour found the TEXT of
      Anne Catherine Emmerich's
      "Life and Passion of Jesus Christ"
      accessible ONLINE !

      Wonderful to have this accessible "24/7" –

      http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob34875/

      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

      Also see:

      http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping60.htm

      http://www.mobilixnet.dk/~mob34875/jesus/scriptures/preface.htm
    • Evert Hoff
      I ve been reading the text of the visions that Anne Catherine Emmerich had that Lightsearcher1 posted. There is a great deal of similarity with the story of
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 21, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I've been reading the text of the visions that Anne Catherine Emmerich
        had that Lightsearcher1 posted. There is a great deal of similarity with
        the story of creation in the first few books of the Bible.

        Whom of you think that the story of creation (as in the Bible and
        according to Emmerich) is literally true, who don't think so? Let's have
        a poll on this. Is the story of creation fact or fiction?

        I think it is fiction. I have no reason to doubt that Emmerich really
        had this vision. But, even if she really had this vision, it doesn't
        make it fact. She could have seen in her vision the same work of fiction
        that was seen by the person who wrote the first books in the Bible. She
        might even have been the same person who created the original story of
        creation in a previous life. Or, the original work of fiction to explain
        creation might have been "written" by a Higher Being. The person who
        wrote the first few books of the Bible could have "seen" this work of
        fiction in a vision, and Emmerich could have "seen" this same Idea. She
        might have just described what she saw more clearly than the first
        writer, which would account for the differences.

        What motive would a Higher Being have to give to humans such a fictional
        account of creation instead of the truth? Steiner has shown us how
        complex the spiritual world actually is. Steiner has only written down
        the tip of the iceberg of how the spiritual world works and his writings
        already fill a library. People who lived thousands of years ago would
        not have been able to understand all this complexity, and therefore the
        need for a simplistic account of creation. Also, this "white lie" does
        no harm - the story of creation probably has the right message about the
        reasons why we have good and evil in the world and what to do about it,
        and that's what matters.

        The reason why I doubt whether it is literal fact is because it gets
        really difficult to explain away all the things that science has shown
        us about evolution. If we want to believe the story of creation
        literally then we need to change the story to say that on day
        four-and-a-half God created dinosaur skeletons and planted them beneath
        the ground for future scientists to find.

        I think the way it all came about is through gradual evolution which was
        and is under the guidance of Higher Beings. There might even have been a
        big bang that was initiated by God after He created the laws of nature
        to govern how the atoms, molecules, forces, etc would react during a big
        bang. There might even have been several big bangs - one for each of the
        evolutions of the earth that Steiner described.

        What do you think?

        Evert
      • Joel Wendt
        ... Dear Evert, What I think is that science is more likely wrong than is the Bible, but I don t take the Bible literally. I also don t take the Bible
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 21, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:03, Evert Hoff wrote:

          > The reason why I doubt whether it is literal fact is because it gets
          > really difficult to explain away all the things that science has shown
          > us about evolution. If we want to believe the story of creation
          > literally then we need to change the story to say that on day
          > four-and-a-half God created dinosaur skeletons and planted them beneath
          > the ground for future scientists to find.
          >
          > I think the way it all came about is through gradual evolution which was
          > and is under the guidance of Higher Beings. There might even have been a
          > big bang that was initiated by God after He created the laws of nature
          > to govern how the atoms, molecules, forces, etc would react during a big
          > bang. There might even have been several big bangs - one for each of the
          > evolutions of the earth that Steiner described.

          Dear Evert,

          What I think is that science is more likely wrong than is the Bible,
          but I don't take the Bible literally. I also don't take the Bible
          metaphorically, but rather that it uses language in a quite different
          way than we do today, and our problem is to a) understand what it means
          on its own terms; and, b) to appreciate that it deals with time in a way
          we do not.

          Evolution (to a large degree) and big bang cosmology are themselves
          myths (in the modern use of that term - which means fictions created to
          justify assumptions). In order to know this all one has to do is
          recreate the thinking, and track its assumptions and illogical premises.

          Don Cruse and Robert Zimmer, in their book "Evolution and the New
          Gnosis" pretty well establish that modern evolutionary biology is rooted
          in a fundamental logical error that comes from using language (such as
          the word "mechanism"), in a way which warps the theory from the
          beginning, and leads to a mis-perception of the factual material.

          Big Bang cosmology requires a number of unproven assumptions (a number
          of which are also illogical), with the result that it takes all the
          crucial questions and sets them aside (without resolving them), until
          everything is pushed to the other side of the supposed singularity.

          A lot of the thinking of both theories is based upon a need to maintain
          for the materialistic scientific world view its own consistency, rather
          than to deal with the many anomalies. What can't be counted (all the
          qualitative and psychological aspects of reality) are pretended out of
          existence, so that the theories only have to deal with the measurable.
          No surprise then that the theories come up with a universe without soul
          and spirit, since every fact suggesting these aspects have been ignored.

          So to judge the Bible by comparing it to evolution or big bang theories
          is to compare something, of which we have yet to really appreciate its
          meaning, against something that is a logically flawed myth of modern
          times.

          True Myths are something else, as pointed out by Barfield in his
          "Speaker's Meaning". His thesis is fairly straight forward, but
          subtle. The age of Ancient Myths (as opposed to modern scientific
          myths), arise from a time when languages were "Young" and literal. Each
          term referred only to something in experience, so that a term such as
          tree referred to the experience "tree", and the term gnome to the
          experience "gnome". Only a "Old" language uses metaphor, thus the Myths
          can't be metaphors for the unexplained (as alleged by modern
          scientifically educated minds), but can only refer to experienced
          truths.

          In that the Bible relates a Myth of Creation, it is an exact reference
          to something experienced, using language in the best way possible given
          the time in which it is reported (we should recognize of course that our
          "English" Bible is not the original language). Meanwhile scientific
          myths have no such reference to experience, since they are doing that of
          which modern minds accused the ancients - namely making an imaginative
          "explanation" for what can't be experienced. The scientist doesn't
          experience the big bang or evolution, he creates it as an hypothesis in
          the imagination to explain facts already washed free of inconvenient
          anomalous material. The writer of Genesis has an experience of Creation
          "in the spirit", as the writer of Revelations puts it, something
          understood at that time (and now in our time) as a consequence of
          initiation.

          warm regards,
          joel
        • elaineupton2001
          My dear Everett, I find your questions lie in the intellectual soul realm YOu ask things like what is all this Christ stuff? Stuff was your word. And then
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 26, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            My dear Everett,

            I find your questions lie in the intellectual soul realm YOu ask
            things like "what is all this Christ stuff?" Stuff was your word. And
            then you ask for a poll (a very intellectual materialistic tool)
            about what people think about Emmerich's vision, and also ask whether
            it is truth or fiction (in people's opinions). All these questions,
            in my view, can lead to a lot of discussion that evades the HEART of
            the subject, and people's opinions are not even worth a dime a dozen
            to me (although maybe they are worth lots to you and to some
            others...???)

            In any case, I'd say that people's opinions (including mine), by
            definition, have nothing to do with TRUTH. Truth is beyond opinion,
            and certainly beyond some intellectual materialist mode of polling.

            As for the Christ--my experience is that Christ is a Living Being,
            the highest ideal where Divine and Human meet and marry. Thus, Christ
            is not merely "stuff" and if you use that approach, I doubt you will
            discover much, except 'stuff'. As I wrote in an earlier post, I
            suggest one look within to find the Living Christ--as St. John's
            Gospel says (Joel quoted some of this): "This is the Light that
            lighteth every one that comes into the world...and the Light shines
            in the darkness and the darkness comprehends it not." Yet, our taks
            on Earth is to partake of this drama and to comprehend, experience,
            know the Light within, and then, of course, all around.

            In another way of speaking, the Navajos have a prayer that to me also
            speaks of Christ (so that Christ may be called by other names in
            different cultures). The Navajo prayer speaks of this Light in this
            way:
            May Beauty be behind me
            May Beauty be before me
            May Beauty be above me
            May Beauty be below me
            May Beauty be within me
            May Beauty be all around me

            ((There are slight variations on this prayer that forms the heart of
            a ritual of consciousness...of presence.))

            Back to the John Gospel--which is a marvelous text of initiation:

            "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
            was God....all things were made by it and without it was not anything
            made that was made..."

            These verses, this and what follows, in the opening of the St. John
            Gospel are really all anyone needs to know to find the Christ...but --
            to really KNOW them can, in my experience, take lifetimes. Still, one
            starts somewhere, and one can start by living with and meditating
            (with HEART And Mind) upon these verses...

            As for Emmerich and whether her vision is fact or fiction, I will nto
            comment. Only by knowing Christ (called by whatever name in whatever
            culture and language--the marriage of Human and Divine, the Divine
            Light within) can any other questions have an En-LIGHTENED answer
            (and I do not speak of the conventional blond-blueyed Jesus of many
            churches), nor the Jesus that some "fundamentalists" use to beat
            Muslims, etc. over the head with.

            Blessings,
            elaine
          • Evert Hoff
            ... Elaine, My name is Evert, not Everett - I clearly put my name on each message that I sent. I trust that you are not deliberately mis-quoting my name.
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 28, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 21:20, elaineupton2001 wrote:
              > My dear Everett,

              Elaine,

              My name is Evert, not "Everett" - I clearly put my name on each message
              that I sent. I trust that you are not deliberately mis-quoting my name.
              Even if it is just carelessness, please beware, because it creates the
              impression that you are being condescending

              >
              > I find your questions lie in the intellectual soul realm YOu ask
              > things like "what is all this Christ stuff?" Stuff was your word. And
              > then you ask for a poll (a very intellectual materialistic tool)
              > about what people think about Emmerich's vision, and also ask whether
              > it is truth or fiction (in people's opinions). All these questions,
              > in my view, can lead to a lot of discussion that evades the HEART of
              > the subject, and people's opinions are not even worth a dime a dozen
              > to me (although maybe they are worth lots to you and to some
              > others...???)
              >
              > In any case, I'd say that people's opinions (including mine), by
              > definition, have nothing to do with TRUTH. Truth is beyond opinion,
              > and certainly beyond some intellectual materialist mode of polling.

              The reason why I asked for a poll was only to stimulate discussion
              (which it failed to do, unfortunately). You need not be afraid that I
              will accept the most voted-for opinion as the truth. I think - I accept
              as truth only what makes sense to me.

              The reason why I refer to the subject as "stuff" is to make it very
              clear to myself and to others that I do not know whether it is true or
              not. I do this in order to be honest with myself and others.

              I made a decision at some point in my life to stop blindly believing
              anything. I decided that I will only accept as truth what makes sense to
              me. My thinking might sometimes be wrong, but it is still the best tool
              for decision making that I have. I have also learned to not attach my
              ego to my opinions - in other words I can change my opinion easily
              without feeling that my sense of self is being threatened. I actually
              often change my mind, sometimes radically, and I don't feel bad about
              it, because I know that at each moment in my life I act on what I
              consider to be true/right/best/fairest. And if asked, I can always
              explain why I reached a certain conclusion.

              I do not know whether the Bible was really written by God in order to
              serve as a guide for our lives. There is reasonable doubt that people
              many centuries ago might have had their own agendas and might have
              changed, invented or omitted parts of or the whole of it. I won't
              believe that the Bible is true just because my Sunday school teacher or
              minister said so. They were also just people who trusted the authorities
              before them. The only way that I can decide whether parts of it are true
              or not is by thinking about the message and deciding whether the message
              makes sense to me or not.

              As far as Jesus/Christ is concerned, I am even more confused, because
              different groups of people reading the Bible draw different conclusions
              about Jesus/Christ. Steiner's writings about Christ are also different
              from the Christian churches. But even more, Steiner doesn't really make
              it clear in simple terms, what the Christ event MEANS and what ACTION I
              am supposed to take. The churches say you must BELIEVE IN Christ if you
              want to be saved - and I could never figure out what they mean by it.
              Steiner doesn't prescribe an alternative action. Do we need to do
              something about Christ or was it just a historical event that changed
              the world, but now no longer demands our daily attention.

              About ten years ago (maybe more) I thought about whether there is a God.
              After a long reasoning I concluded that there must be a God. Then I
              thought about why God created everything and after a while I found an
              answer that satisfied me. Then I thought about whether we live just once
              or many times, and again after a long deliberation I concluded that it
              would only make sense if we were reincarnated. I question this train of
              thought with every new opinion that I encounter. Yet, for more than ten
              years now my reasoning about this hasn't changed much.

              I also do not know whether the stuff that Steiner wrote was true or not.
              I am skeptical about all of it. But, sometimes the message rings true
              for me. A lot of it fits into my framework of why God created everything
              and why we are reincarnated and a lot of what Steiner wrote expands on
              it and causes other things to also make sense to me.

              I do not know whether my reasoning is correct. But, the only tool that I
              have for finding out whether it is correct, is thinking. I challenge all
              my conclusions every time I come across something new. You say you don't
              value opinions, but I do, because I learn from them. I take each opinion
              and try to fit it into my framework. If I don't know and have no way of
              finding out whether it is true or not, I consider the effect of "what if
              it is true" and "what if it is false", then I learn from that.

              You consider my approach to be very cold and intellectual, but it is all
              that I have - if I'm honest with myself. Maybe I am still at the
              Intellectual Soul level and maybe you have reached a higher level of
              evolution. If so, good for you. I'll only turn 35 in November and as I
              understand it that is the time in each incarnation when we experience or
              re-experience that soul transformation. Or, maybe I won't get to that
              level at all in this incarnation - the Intellectual Soul level might be
              my current highest level of development and I might stay there through
              this entire incarnation. It doesn't matter to me at what stage of
              evolution I am and I am in no hurry to evolve faster than my present
              pace. I am in no rush to become enlightened - I am enjoying the journey
              too much. So, I am stuck at some level of my evolution and all I can do
              is be honest with myself - and for me that means following the thinking
              path at present.

              A message to all you Consciousness Soul level people out there: Know
              that if I am at a lower level of development than you, then you can
              expect a large number of people on this planet at this time to be the
              same. So, if you want to have an impact in this world of lowly
              intellectual soul people, then you'll need to descend to our level and
              speak in a language that we understand - logic. If you really are at a
              level beyond (and not prior to) the Intellectual Soul level, then this
              should be easy for you, because then you surely must have passed through
              that stage again in this incarnation, and re-mastered it.

              Regards,

              Evert
            • Lee Peters
              Evert, This discussion you are having is interesting and not ususal. I went throught this also. I think we all have to go through a rejection period and clear
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 28, 2003
              • 0 Attachment

                Evert,

                This discussion you are having is interesting and not ususal. I went throught this also. I think we all have to go through a rejection period and clear our minds out of "beliefs" and systems to create an open mind and heart. But I do think there is more to all this and we may be off track here. 

                 If you feel special about someone or love someone, and a stranger calls that person a "broad" or "that lady", you would probably react strongly. Whether one believes that same as another , a cetain level of respect is called for and calling something sacred to another "stuff" will certainly set them off.

                As to the nature of thinking and reason in spiritual matters. Though "thinking" is critical to our lives and a major component of Anthrosophy, it seems, it is not thinking per se that proves the existence of God or Angels or spiritual phenomena. It is experience first, and then thinking. We take in impressions and experiences in life and then think it over. If I burn my hand on a hot stone, I first had the burning expierence; and then I think it over so it does not happen again. This is obvious but even more in spiritual matters. In the spiritual life, mystics and seers do not "think" about God or spiritual states or realities - they either have a continual direct experience of this  state of "reality" or have had it in the past and use it as reference point. "Reality" may be open to interperation and many msytical reports do not necesssary jive but the majority of them have common similarities that are undeniable. To find out the exitence of God, Descartes would have said (as many today would say)I think about God and it is reasonable, so it is logical for there to be a God. 

                It is reasonable and therefore probable. But uncertainity still prevails. A msytic or spiritual teacher would say, do this meditation or this practice and one will come to perceive and know the Divine realites around us like gravity or the warmth of the sun.

                When one turns to secondary sources like the scriptures, I have found confusion abounds. It is always better to bypass these at first ( or see them as highly fragmented or edited sources) and go those sources (books or living people- preferred) who claim or are acknowledged to have some form of inner realization and commmunicate it in word and presence. One of the best examples of this was Autobiography of a Yogi by Yogananda. A fanastic book by all accounts but honest and direct account of his experiences on the path. Another is Swendenborg. This renonw scientist of the 18th century was nearly as profilic as Steiner and reported his own experiences (not thoughts about what may exist)in the spiritual invisible worlds beyond the one we live in. As with any "mystic" or spiritual teacher, one must compare notes and evaluate bias; but once done, the essence is usually the same among most sources.  Then one can move on from the general to the specific issues of spiritual fact or error like who was Christ, where did He come from; etc.

                Lee 


                Evert,
                The reason why I asked for a poll was only to stimulate discussion
                (which it failed to do, unfortunately). You need not be afraid that I
                will accept the most voted-for opinion as the truth. I think - I accept
                as truth only what makes sense to me.

                The reason why I refer to the subject as "stuff" is to make it very
                clear to myself and to others that I do not know whether it is true or
                not. I do this in order to be honest with myself and others.

                I made a decision at some point in my life to stop blindly believing
                anything. I decided that I will only accept as truth what makes sense to
                me. My thinking might sometimes be wrong, but it is still the best tool
                for decision making that I have. I have also learned to not attach my
                ego to my opinions - in other words I can change my opinion easily
                without feeling that my sense of self is being threatened. I actually
                often change my mind, sometimes radically, and I don't feel bad about
                it, because I know that at each moment in my life I act on what I
                consider to be true/right/best/fairest. And if asked, I can always
                explain why I reached a certain conclusion.

                I do not know whether the Bible was really written by God in order to
                serve as a guide for our lives. There is reasonable doubt that people
                many centuries ago might have had their own agendas and might have
                changed, invented or omitted parts of or the whole of it. I won't
                believe that the Bible is true just because my Sunday school teacher or
                minister said so. They were also just people who trusted the authorities
                before them. The only way that I can decide whether parts of it are true
                or not is by thinking about the message and deciding whether the message
                makes sense to me or not.

                As far as Jesus/Christ is concerned, I am even more confused, because
                different groups of people reading the Bible draw different conclusions
                about Jesus/Christ. Steiner's writings about Christ are also different
                from the Christian churches. But even more, Steiner doesn't really make
                it clear in simple terms, what the Christ event MEANS and what ACTION I
                am supposed to take. The churches say you must BELIEVE IN Christ if you
                want to be saved - and I could never figure out what they mean by it.
                Steiner doesn't prescribe an alternative action. Do we need to do
                something about Christ or was it just a historical event that changed
                the world, but now no longer demands our daily attention.

                About ten years ago (maybe more) I thought about whether there is a God.
                After a long reasoning I concluded that there must be a God. Then I
                thought about why God created everything and after a while I found an
                answer that satisfied me. Then I thought about whether we live just once
                or many times, and again after a long deliberation I concluded that it
                would only make sense if we were reincarnated. I question this train of
                thought with every new opinion that I encounter. Yet, for more than ten
                years now my reasoning about this hasn't changed much.

                I also do not know whether the stuff that Steiner wrote was true or not.
                I am skeptical about all of it. But, sometimes the message rings true
                for me. A lot of it fits into my framework of why God created everything
                and why we are reincarnated and a lot of what Steiner wrote expands on
                it and causes other things to also make sense to me.

                I do not know whether my reasoning is correct. But, the only tool that I
                have for finding out whether it is correct, is thinking. I challenge all
                my conclusions every time I come across something new. You say you don't
                value opinions, but I do, because I learn from them. I take each opinion
                and try to fit it into my framework. If I don't know and have no way of
                finding out whether it is true or not, I consider the effect of "what if
                it is true" and "what if it is false", then I learn from that.

                You consider my approach to be very cold and intellectual, but it is all
                that I have - if I'm honest with myself. Maybe I am still at the
                Intellectual Soul level and maybe you have reached a higher level of
                evolution. If so, good for you. I'll only turn 35 in November and as I
                understand it that is the time in each incarnation when we experience or
                re-experience that soul transformation. Or, maybe I won't get to that
                level at all in this incarnation - the Intellectual Soul level might be
                my current highest level of development and I might stay there through
                this entire incarnation. It doesn't matter to me at what stage of
                evolution I am and I am in no hurry to evolve faster than my present
                pace. I am in no rush to become enlightened - I am enjoying the journey
                too much. So, I am stuck at some level of my evolution and all I can do
                is be honest with myself - and for me that means following the thinking
                path at present.

                A message to all you Consciousness Soul level people out there: Know
                that if I am at a lower level of development than you, then you can
                expect a large number of people on this planet at this time to be the
                same. So, if you want to have an impact in this world of lowly
                intellectual soul people, then you'll need to descend to our level and
                speak in a language that we understand - logic. If you really are at a
                level beyond (and not prior to) the Intellectual Soul level, then this
                should be easy for you, because then you surely must have passed through
                that stage again in this incarnation, and re-mastered it.

                Regards,

                Evert



                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.


                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
              • Bradford Riley
                From: Evert Hoff ... Evert Thought; ... Mr.Riley responds; Well thank you Evert - Naturally we wondered why Spiritual Science was not
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 28, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: Evert Hoff <evert.hoff@...>
                  >?
                  >Date: 28 Apr 2003 19:04:55 +0200

                  Evert Thought;

                  >>A message to all you Consciousness Soul level people out there: Know
                  >that if I am at a lower level of development than you, then you can
                  >expect a large number of people on this planet at this time to be the
                  >same. So, if you want to have an impact in this world of lowly
                  >intellectual soul people, then you'll need to descend to our level and
                  >speak in a language that we understand - logic. If you really are at a
                  >level beyond (and not prior to) the Intellectual Soul level, then this
                  >should be easy for you, because then you surely must have passed through
                  >that stage again in this incarnation, and re-mastered it.

                  Mr.Riley responds;

                  Well thank you Evert - Naturally we wondered why Spiritual Science was not
                  just grabbing people and why our numbers were down. I'm glad you cleared
                  that up for me. I had never thought that it could be that the complexity of
                  a Science, particularly the Science of either biology, psychology or
                  physiology and the actual Science of the Christ Event requires more than a
                  sixth grade education. Imagine that!!

                  As to public, private and study matters amongst my friends; I share research
                  and in order to continue to grow into the superstructure of Spiritual
                  Science, I continue to bring my feeble understanding into the complexity of
                  our times. When I write an actual finished writing and not mere notes on
                  e-mail.. I write with the best understanding that my Angel and I agree on.

                  As a writer, I found that most of my work, for HBO and the stage, required
                  that I write down to the sixth grade standard level of audience. I have
                  enormous flaws, as anybody here knows. However in order to live deeper into
                  where my Angel wishes to take me.. I made a conscious decision to write for
                  my Angel tutor. (sometimes even in English).

                  As a teacher I teach in both public and Waldorf education and I must
                  communicate under the popular umbrella that you described so clearly, and
                  much that I might like to say... I can not. There is a healthy logic in
                  that. But here on this list we share, and others have far more logic than I,
                  we share our schooled and unschooled insights. I continue to reshape and
                  work mine through towards the completion of books and various other mediums
                  of expression... but it always helps me.. and it only bothers me a tiny bit,
                  that I hardly make myself understood.

                  As you said, you are the thinker and it is only [our] your thinking that is
                  able to tell what is what and what makes sense and that goes for me as well.
                  I have gained some small insights into the depths of spiritual science after
                  35 years of study. The beauty of it is, that there is no ceiling, not final
                  degree, it is a School where the Secrets of Mankind are shared and our
                  growth proceeds along with our cultures growth.

                  As far as I can tell, we all agree with you, nobody does our thinking for
                  us, we all pretty much, as far as I can see, like to think for ourselves.
                  Your also right that life itself, as well as this list, is an odd mixture of
                  different intuitions, styles and ways of approach. Rule number one, learn to
                  understand the approach of another and never be afraid to throw out a
                  question. But you already know all that.

                  Oh, just a footnote, I am a graduate of the Speech School from the Goetheaum
                  in Dornach Switzerland. I consider it one of the best educations to have in
                  the world and with the right thinking tools, Spiritual Science is able to
                  penetrate every realm of normal logic and science and add something unique
                  to the mix. I firmly hold that we all need to add a new mix to the current
                  world.

                  Now since the depth and height of Spiritual Science is beyond anyones
                  prediction, where it ends and how rich it makes us... It would seem that
                  your struggle to cope with the Consciousness Soul with your Intellect is one
                  of the healthiest signs of the times that I have heard. Glad your here and I
                  was glad you were here from your very first note.

                  Bradford



                  _________________________________________________________________
                  The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
                  http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
                • Joel Wendt
                  ... Dear Evert, Whether one goes from the Intellectual Soul to the Consciousness Soul depends upon choice. I can t do it for you, only you go do it for
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 28, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 13:04, Evert Hoff wrote:

                    >
                    > A message to all you Consciousness Soul level people out there: Know
                    > that if I am at a lower level of development than you, then you can
                    > expect a large number of people on this planet at this time to be the
                    > same. So, if you want to have an impact in this world of lowly
                    > intellectual soul people, then you'll need to descend to our level and
                    > speak in a language that we understand - logic. If you really are at a
                    > level beyond (and not prior to) the Intellectual Soul level, then this
                    > should be easy for you, because then you surely must have passed through
                    > that stage again in this incarnation, and re-mastered it.

                    Dear Evert,

                    Whether one goes from the Intellectual Soul to the Consciousness Soul
                    depends upon choice. I can't do it for you, only you go do it for
                    yourself. You don't have to stop being logical at all, by the way, but
                    you do have to add something to what you are willing to be logical
                    about.

                    It is one thing to be logical about abstract ideas (which is sort of
                    what the Intellectual Soul is about), and it is another thing entirely
                    to look inwardly at ones own soul life and study the phenomena of
                    thinking, feeling and willing as that appears to introspection. This
                    introspective study (Know Thyself) can be done in a number of ways, and
                    my personal preference is to following the map laid out in Steiner's "A
                    Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception."

                    This map is very logical and exact.

                    The result is that you teach yourself what needs to be learned, by
                    discovering how to be "logical" about experience. You also get to be
                    completely in charge of the investigation, because introspection
                    involves what you see in yourself, not what I or any other tells you you
                    should see.

                    We use a map because like any unknown territory it helps to have a
                    guide who has been there, otherwise we tend to waste a lot of time going
                    in circles, when the problems that need to be faced can be faced in a
                    much more orderly fashion through the advice of a guide.

                    Just remember that the book (map) is not the experience (the
                    territory). Understanding this can save a lot of time wasted on
                    discussions of a certain kind that can't lead anywhere if they just
                    remain in the realm of abstract ideas. What is needed is to enrich
                    one's experience, and this is work - a work that can't be replaced by
                    any amount of thinking about abstractions.

                    For example, we could discuss endlessly on this list our different
                    ideas about Christ and Anthroposophy, but we really only get to the
                    "work" when we can share about our experience of our own inwardness in a
                    frank and open and trusting fashion. The rest of the endless
                    pronouncements of Great Ideas" is just a waste.

                    Of course, there are other Paths and Ways, even within "Anthroposophy"
                    in the widest sense. This list is not the only list, and I would have
                    to admit that it is certainly not, in my view, the best "Path" list
                    based on Steiner's "maps".

                    Now maybe you just want to "intellectualize" about spirituality, which
                    is certainly okay - after all its your choice. But if you want to
                    "practice" anthroposophy, instead of talk about it, then introspection
                    is the place to begin.

                    As regards "level of development", that is and will always be horse
                    shit, on whatever Path. You're you, I'm me, Starman is who he is,
                    Bradford, Elaine, etc. - each is who they are, and no one is better or
                    higher or more spiritual or more anthroposophical.

                    For example, my experience of Christ as Love is that there is nothing
                    comparative (one thing is better, another worse) about it. His Love is
                    entirely and fully freely given to us as we are. It is we who think
                    ourselves unworthy (one of the problems to be worked with on an
                    introspective path). It is we think this one is advanced and we are
                    not.

                    warm regards,
                    joel
                  • Evert Hoff
                    ... Are you saying that our souls do not evolve? I got the clear impression from reading Steiner that our souls go through transformation and that the seven
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 28, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 22:39, Joel Wendt wrote:

                      > As regards "level of development", that is and will always be horse
                      > shit, on whatever Path. You're you, I'm me, Starman is who he is,
                      > Bradford, Elaine, etc. - each is who they are, and no one is better or
                      > higher or more spiritual or more anthroposophical.

                      Are you saying that our souls do not evolve? I got the clear impression
                      from reading Steiner that our souls go through transformation and that
                      the seven year cycles in each life are a repeat of the transformations
                      that we went through in previous lives. In other words, in each
                      incarnation we quickly re-learn the lessons that we had learned in
                      previous lives until we get to our current level.

                      >
                      > For example, my experience of Christ as Love is that there is nothing
                      > comparative (one thing is better, another worse) about it. His Love is
                      > entirely and fully freely given to us as we are. It is we who think
                      > ourselves unworthy (one of the problems to be worked with on an
                      > introspective path). It is we think this one is advanced and we are
                      > not.

                      If you are saying that the Christ event had significance for people at
                      all levels of their development, I could accept that, but I do think
                      that we actually evolve and that people alive in the world at this
                      moment would be at various stages of evolution. We are not all equal in
                      a spiritual sense, but that is OK, nothing to be ashamed of. We each
                      grow at our own pace.

                      Evert
                    • Lee Peters
                      Evert, I would have to agree with you here. We are not born equal in skill, ability or spiritual development. This does not justify arrogance or bias, but
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 29, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Evert,
                         
                        I would have to agree with you here. We are not born   "equal" in skill, ability or spiritual development. This does not justify arrogance or bias, but is simply a fact. I would rather have Andre Watts playing Beethoven than Elton John. There is no comparison and they are not just different types of musicians but one is more "evolved" than the other (more skilled, deeper appreciation of music, boarder understanding of music, etc) Does one have more "soul" than the other, that depends on what aspect of the soul carries over and contributes to the spiritual universe.
                        Lee

                         


                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
                      • Joel Wendt
                        Dear Evert, No, I am not saying that souls don t evolve. I am saying that we have to not confuse difference for any kind of wrongness or higherness or
                        Message 11 of 12 , Apr 29, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Evert,

                          No, I am not saying that souls don't evolve. I am saying that we have
                          to not confuse difference for any kind of wrongness or higherness or
                          lessness.

                          Everyone is different, but no one is better. Each has their biography
                          and the choices they are meant to face within that biography. But all
                          are the same on a "spiritual level", which is part of the lesson of
                          "washing the feet". Christ kneels before the disciples, and takes a
                          most humble position, demonstrating by his action the foundational step
                          of development - true humility.

                          Certainly each person is on their particular "place" on their Path, but
                          when (or if) we think that this one's place is better or higher, then we
                          mistake difference for wrongness. Lots of people do this by the way,
                          saying things like "Steiner is so much more highly evolved than me".

                          This comes from an observable (remember introspection) quality of mind
                          - the tendency to "compare" this and that. We are also raised in a
                          culture that puts these kinds of values everywhere - this one is more
                          handsome, that one richer, this one too fat, that one too dumb.

                          Introspective self observation will let us catch ourselves in the act
                          of making these kinds of comparative judgments, after which we can do
                          the essential consciousness soul act, which is to ask inwardly whether
                          such a judgment is an aspect of the good and the true. But that is a
                          whole other story.

                          warm regards,
                          joel

                          On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 20:59, Evert Hoff wrote:
                          > On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 22:39, Joel Wendt wrote:
                          >
                          > > As regards "level of development", that is and will always be horse
                          > > shit, on whatever Path. You're you, I'm me, Starman is who he is,
                          > > Bradford, Elaine, etc. - each is who they are, and no one is better or
                          > > higher or more spiritual or more anthroposophical.
                          >
                          > Are you saying that our souls do not evolve? I got the clear impression
                          > from reading Steiner that our souls go through transformation and that
                          > the seven year cycles in each life are a repeat of the transformations
                          > that we went through in previous lives. In other words, in each
                          > incarnation we quickly re-learn the lessons that we had learned in
                          > previous lives until we get to our current level.
                          >
                          > >
                          > > For example, my experience of Christ as Love is that there is nothing
                          > > comparative (one thing is better, another worse) about it. His Love is
                          > > entirely and fully freely given to us as we are. It is we who think
                          > > ourselves unworthy (one of the problems to be worked with on an
                          > > introspective path). It is we think this one is advanced and we are
                          > > not.
                          >
                          > If you are saying that the Christ event had significance for people at
                          > all levels of their development, I could accept that, but I do think
                          > that we actually evolve and that people alive in the world at this
                          > moment would be at various stages of evolution. We are not all equal in
                          > a spiritual sense, but that is OK, nothing to be ashamed of. We each
                          > grow at our own pace.
                          >
                          > Evert
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                        • elaineupton2001
                          Dear Evert, First, let me apologize for misspelling of your name. No, I am not condescending--but rather sometimes just a bit--something like dyslexic??--with
                          Message 12 of 12 , May 1, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Evert,

                            First, let me apologize for misspelling of your name. No, I am not
                            condescending--but rather sometimes just a bit--something like
                            dyslexic??--with the computer. Anyway, I do apologize, because a name
                            is a serious matter.

                            As for the question at hand--about how we know the Truth, about the
                            validity of the Bible, the experience of the Christ, and what
                            Anthroposophy offers, you have very important replies from Joel and
                            Lee, both of whom I agree with, and I appreciate your responses to
                            them. I agree that we do evolve (Intellectual Soul to Consciousness
                            Soul), each in our own time, according to our karma and efforts and
                            grace. I agree that in the Intellectual Soul realm we can apply a
                            kind of logic (syllogistic kind, I would say) that has its value and
                            its place, yet it is limited and it will not, in my experience, lead
                            to a fuller knowing of the Christ. That does not mean that you need
                            to blindly follow what others say (I hope not), but rather, as I said
                            in my first post to you, there is the task, as I see it, of coming to
                            know one's SELF (KNOW THYSELF IS A MAJOR TASK), and that involves
                            looking within (not just some airy fairy new age thing, but really
                            strenuous, disciplined work). Within, in my experience, one finds the
                            Christ...and that can take a lifetime or more or less, depending...

                            And once Christ is known, that knowing also evolves...even as the
                            Christ evolves through physical, etheric and so on in relation to
                            humans. The Church may be stuck in one phase and also that may be
                            good for some, and yet others go beyond that (no value judgement
                            here, but just a recognition of different stages of evolution).

                            Thanks for having this fine and important discussion here.

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