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

Anthroposophical Angle on Christianity

Expand Messages
  • DRStarman2001@aol.com
    ... ********Except that, with such a broad definition as that, almost anyone could claim anything they say was anthroposophic ---as I note that some do. That
    Message 1 of 16 , Apr 27 1:18 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      > > I don't know anything about a specific anthroposophic
      > > angle on Christianity though.

      > If, for something to be "anthroposophic" it has to sound like Steiner, then your are probably right, you don't know any specific anthroposophic angle on Christianity. If, on the other hand, to be "anthroposophic" means to "think" with freshness of heart out of the own "I am", then
      > everything your wrote is quite anthroposophic.


      ********Except that, with such a broad definition as that, almost anyone could claim anything they say was 'anthroposophic'---as I note that some do. That definition could include Jim Jones or L. Ron Hubbard, it seems to me, at least in their own opinion of their pronouncements.
      We know from Anthroposophy that there are three paths to the spirit--- the old yogic one, the Christian devotional one, and the modern "Rosicrucian" one. The Christian devotional one was a path of feeling, a path of initiation with the thinking left out. It is no longer appropriate for most modern-day humans. The modern one has to do with science, objective knowledge, and the will. It involves thinking exercises, CONSCIOUS feeling exercises and exercising the will. Now, a person following this path eventually has an encounter with a being which, if he has a Christian upbringing, he will quickly recognize as the Christ. (If he does not, he may call it by another name.) See, for instance, Steiner's lecture " The Death of a God And Its Fruits in Humanity" of May 5th 1912.

      So the "anthroposophic angle" is that it is an objective reality which a spiritual scientist contacts, and which contact can be induced by a specific path of training rather than left to luck. When following this training, we also learn to distinguish the true spiritual reality from false copies, and we also find that there are "false Christs" or in other words phantom images of the real one, which certain erroneous spiritual paths induce, as can be seen in many 'Christian' churches today. One can distinguish these from the real one with training as easily as the eye distinguishes red from blue.

      The "anthroposophical angle" is rather like ours could be said to be on painting, in that, while many people just jump into painting and do it by pure irrational feeling with no thinking involved, doing nothing consciously, a painter pursuing painting as a spiritual path through Anthroposophy accompanies his Will and feeling with clear thinking about darkness in front of light, light in front of darkness, warm and cool colors, etc. What is produced is the result of training and conscious action. Similarly, what a spiritual scientist says about Buddha or Christ does not come from the realm of blind faith, but of knowledge, arrived at by specific exercises as part of a comprehensive training. Once this is achieved, insight may be gained into old religious traditions, which merely passing on the traditions without this knowledge does not include.
      -Starman
    • DRStarman2001@aol.com
      ... ********Except that, with such a broad definition as that, almost anyone could claim anything they say was anthroposophic ---as I note that some do. That
      Message 2 of 16 , Apr 27 1:18 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > > I don't know anything about a specific anthroposophic
        > > angle on Christianity though.

        > If, for something to be "anthroposophic" it has to sound like Steiner, then your are probably right, you don't know any specific anthroposophic angle on Christianity. If, on the other hand, to be "anthroposophic" means to "think" with freshness of heart out of the own "I am", then
        > everything your wrote is quite anthroposophic.


        ********Except that, with such a broad definition as that, almost anyone could claim anything they say was 'anthroposophic'---as I note that some do. That definition could include Jim Jones or L. Ron Hubbard, it seems to me, at least in their own opinion of their pronouncements.
        We know from Anthroposophy that there are three paths to the spirit--- the old yogic one, the Christian devotional one, and the modern "Rosicrucian" one. The Christian devotional one was a path of feeling, a path of initiation with the thinking left out. It is no longer appropriate for most modern-day humans. The modern one has to do with science, objective knowledge, and the will. It involves thinking exercises, CONSCIOUS feeling exercises and exercising the will. Now, a person following this path eventually has an encounter with a being which, if he has a Christian upbringing, he will quickly recognize as the Christ. (If he does not, he may call it by another name.) See, for instance, Steiner's lecture " The Death of a God And Its Fruits in Humanity" of May 5th 1912.

        So the "anthroposophic angle" is that it is an objective reality which a spiritual scientist contacts, and which contact can be induced by a specific path of training rather than left to luck. When following this training, we also learn to distinguish the true spiritual reality from false copies, and we also find that there are "false Christs" or in other words phantom images of the real one, which certain erroneous spiritual paths induce, as can be seen in many 'Christian' churches today. One can distinguish these from the real one with training as easily as the eye distinguishes red from blue.

        The "anthroposophical angle" is rather like ours could be said to be on painting, in that, while many people just jump into painting and do it by pure irrational feeling with no thinking involved, doing nothing consciously, a painter pursuing painting as a spiritual path through Anthroposophy accompanies his Will and feeling with clear thinking about darkness in front of light, light in front of darkness, warm and cool colors, etc. What is produced is the result of training and conscious action. Similarly, what a spiritual scientist says about Buddha or Christ does not come from the realm of blind faith, but of knowledge, arrived at by specific exercises as part of a comprehensive training. Once this is achieved, insight may be gained into old religious traditions, which merely passing on the traditions without this knowledge does not include.
        -Starman
      • Lee Peters
        Thanks for this clear explanation. What is the Rosicrucian path by the way? and are any Anthroposophists now or passed. who accomplished what Steiner did;and
        Message 3 of 16 , Apr 28 11:12 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for this clear explanation.
           
          What is the Rosicrucian path by the way?
           
          and are any Anthroposophists now or passed. who accomplished what Steiner did;and if not, why hasn't this path produced more initiates and seers that can continue his visionary work?
           
          Lee

          DRStarman2001@... wrote:

          > >
          >      If, for something to be "anthroposophic" it has to sound like Steiner, then your are probably right, you don't know any specific anthroposophic angle on Christianity.  If, on the other hand, to be "anthroposophic" means to "think" with freshness of heart out of the own "I am", then
          > everything your wrote is quite anthroposophic.


          ********Except that, with such a broad definition as that, almost anyone could claim anything they say was 'anthroposophic'---as I note that some do. That definition could include Jim Jones or L. Ron Hubbard, it seems to me, at least in their own opinion of their pronouncements.
             We know from Anthroposophy that there are three paths to the spirit--- the old yogic one, the Christian devotional one, and the modern "Rosicrucian" one. The Christian devotional one was a path of feeling, a path of initiation with the thinking left out.  It is no longer appropriate for most modern-day humans. The modern one has to do with science, objective knowledge, and the will. It involves thinking exercises, CONSCIOUS feeling exercises and exercising the will. Now, a person following this path eventually has an encounter with a being which, if he has a Christian upbringing, he will quickly recognize as the Christ. (If he does not, he may call it by another name.) See, for instance, Steiner's lecture " The Death of a God And Its Fruits in Humanity"  of May 5th 1912.

            So the "anthroposophic angle" is that it is an objective reality which a spiritual scientist contacts, and which contact can be induced by a specific path of training rather than left to luck. When following this training, we also learn to distinguish the true spiritual reality from false copies, and we also find that there are "false Christs" or in other words phantom images of the real one, which certain erroneous spiritual paths induce, as can be seen in many 'Christian' churches today. One can distinguish these from the real one with training as easily as the eye distinguishes red from blue.

             The "anthroposophical angle" is rather like ours could be said to be on painting, in that, while many people just jump into painting and do it by pure irrational feeling with no thinking involved, doing nothing consciously, a painter pursuing painting as a spiritual path through Anthroposophy accompanies his Will and feeling with clear thinking about darkness in front of light, light in front of darkness, warm and cool colors, etc. What is produced is the result of training and conscious action. Similarly, what a spiritual scientist says about Buddha or Christ does not come from the realm of blind faith, but of knowledge, arrived at by specific exercises as part of a comprehensive training. Once this is achieved, insight may be gained into old religious traditions, which merely passing on the traditions without this knowledge does not include.
          -Starman


          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.

        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
          ... *******The Rosicrucian path is what Steiner outlines in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, using definite experimental exercises with plants, crystals,
          Message 4 of 16 , Apr 29 11:33 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment

            From: Lee Peters <walkker9@...>
            Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Angle on Christianity

            Thanks for this clear explanation.  What is the Rosicrucian path by the way?  and are any Anthroposophists now or passed. who accomplished what Steiner did;and if not, why hasn't this path produced more initiates and seers that can continue his visionary work? Lee



            *******The "Rosicrucian" path is what Steiner outlines in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, using definite experimental exercises with plants, crystals, sound etc. Few do more than read this book, that's the reason. Doing the exercises is the only thing that can cause changes in the astral and etheric bodies, not merely reading about them. Nowadays many people can say they are studying spiritual science but they have never done any of these, whereas Steiner's direct pupils would be told to perform these, and they did. If spiritual science was just Rudolf Steiner, it would never have survived him, but actually he initiated a large group of pupils---Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, Eugen Kolisko, Carl Unger, Elizabeth Vreede, Walter Johannes Stein, and many others. They did not get as far as Steiner but each made achievements in his own right.
                Unfortunately, Anthroposophy does not work in inducing higher knowledge so long as one only takes it in with the speculative intellect, and too many people do only that. It is something that needs to be taken up as a way of life, with the whole being, including, for instance, using the very personal forces we move our bodies with. Many people also confuse it with other half-conscious or subconscious paths, like Eastern or pagan ones. They want to abandon reason. This path is not one like that: it is constantly directed by your conscious rational mind. Not taking it up enough or taking up in a wrong way is the reason for the poor results exhibited.
            -Starman


            DRStarman2001@... wrote:
            >>
              We know from Anthroposophy that there are three paths to the spirit--- the old yogic one, the Christian devotional one, and the modern "Rosicrucian" one. The Christian devotional one was a path of feeling, a path of initiation with the thinking left out.  It is no longer appropriate for most modern-day humans. The modern one has to do with science, objective knowledge, and the will. It involves thinking exercises, CONSCIOUS feeling exercises and exercising the will. Now, a person following this path eventually has an encounter with a being which, if he has a Christian upbringing, he will quickly recognize as the Christ. (If he does not, he may call it by another name.) See, for instance, Steiner's lecture " The Death of a God And Its Fruits in Humanity"  of May 5th 1912.
            So the "anthroposophic angle" is that it is an objective reality which a spiritual scientist contacts, and which contact can be induced by a specific path of training rather than left to luck. When following this training, we also learn to distinguish the true spiritual reality from false copies, and we also find that there are "false Christs" or in other words phantom images of the real one, which certain erroneous spiritual paths induce, as can be seen in many 'Christian' churches today. One can distinguish these from the real one with training as easily as the eye distinguishes red from blue.
              The "anthroposophical angle" is rather like ours could be said to be on painting, in that, while many people just jump into painting and do it by pure irrational feeling with no thinking involved, doing nothing consciously, a painter pursuing painting as a spiritual path through Anthroposophy accompanies his Will and feeling with clear thinking about darkness in front of light, light in front of darkness, warm and cool colors, etc. What is produced is the result of training and conscious action. Similarly, what a spiritual scientist says about Buddha or Christ does not come from the realm of blind faith, but of knowledge, arrived at by specific exercises as part of a comprehensive training. Once this is achieved, insight may be gained into old religious traditions, which merely passing on the traditions without this knowledge does not include.
            -Starman


            http://www.DrStarman.net
          • Joel Wendt
            Dear Lee, Starman only gives you part of the story. There seems to be two main ways Steiner taught initiation. The first involved his epistemological works
            Message 5 of 16 , Apr 29 2:54 PM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Lee,

              Starman only gives you part of the story.

              There seems to be two main ways Steiner taught initiation. The first
              involved his epistemological works (Truth and Science, A Theory of
              Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception, and the Philosophy of
              Freedom); and, the second (also taught second in order of time) is that
              described in Knowledge of Higher Worlds.

              The first way leads to a new form of initiation, arising in the
              will-in-thinking. The second is more linked to the past, is not so hard
              (in a sense), and involves opening the chakra's in a more typical
              fashion. I have read that he taught the second method (which is not the
              path he traveled), once he understood how difficult was the first for
              many people.

              Starman left out the current practitioners of the will-in-thinking
              method, such as Jessiah Ben-Aharon, and Georg Kuhlewind. There is an
              Italian Stream, and if Andrea hasn't totally bailed out of this list
              because of the political bullshit that was being thrown around, he can
              tell you the details on that.

              Starman also didn't talk about Goetheanism, which is an intermediate
              step - ordinary thinking, organic thinking (Goetheanism) and moral
              thinking (living thinking). I wrote about this problem in my
              essay:"Initiation, Goetheanism and the New Bogeyman",
              at:http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/bogey.html

              There is a very detailed examination of the Christian-Rosicrucian Path
              in Valentin Tomberg's remarkable book: "Inner Development". One is
              really on this path whether one is doing Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom
              will-in-thinking work, or the later Knowledge of Higher Worlds chakra
              work, because the basic nature of the C-R Path is the Seven Stages of
              Christ's Passion, as described in the Gospel of John (washing the feet,
              the scourging, the crowing with thorns, the carrying of the cross, the
              crucifixion, the entombment, and the resurrection).

              These are far more than mere exercises in concentration or meditation,
              but are moral life trials, of which the problem of living thinking, or
              clairvoyance is but an aspect.

              Many biographies can chart their spiritual development along the lines
              of these Seven Stages, which we tend to experience in mini-form
              sometimes, and then in deep anguish other times. Not easy work at all,
              because as we all know, life is a bitch sometimes. But that is the
              Grace too - in the alchemical forge of life our soul/spirit is changed
              from lead into gold.

              warm regards,
              joel



              On Tue, 2003-04-29 at 14:33, DRStarman2001@... wrote:
              >
              > > From: Lee Peters <walkker9@...>
              > > Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Angle on Christianity
              > >
              > > Thanks for this clear explanation. What is the Rosicrucian path by the
              > > way? and are any Anthroposophists now or passed. who accomplished what
              > > Steiner did;and if not, why hasn't this path produced more initiates and
              > > seers that can continue his visionary work? Lee
              >
              >
              > *******The "Rosicrucian" path is what Steiner outlines in Knowledge of the
              > Higher Worlds, using definite experimental exercises with plants, crystals,
              > sound etc. Few do more than read this book, that's the reason. Doing the
              > exercises is the only thing that can cause changes in the astral and etheric
              > bodies, not merely reading about them. Nowadays many people can say they are
              > studying spiritual science but they have never done any of these, whereas
              > Steiner's direct pupils would be told to perform these, and they did. If
              > spiritual science was just Rudolf Steiner, it would never have survived him,
              > but actually he initiated a large group of pupils---Ehrenfried Pfeiffer,
              > Eugen Kolisko, Carl Unger, Elizabeth Vreede, Walter Johannes Stein, and many
              > others. They did not get as far as Steiner but each made achievements in his
              > own right.
              > Unfortunately, Anthroposophy does not work in inducing higher knowledge
              > so long as one only takes it in with the speculative intellect, and too many
              > people do only that. It is something that needs to be taken up as a way of
              > life, with the whole being, including, for instance, using the very personal
              > forces we move our bodies with. Many people also confuse it with other
              > half-conscious or subconscious paths, like Eastern or pagan ones. They want
              > to abandon reason. This path is not one like that: it is constantly directed
              > by your conscious rational mind. Not taking it up enough or taking up in a
              > wrong way is the reason for the poor results exhibited.
              > -Starman
              > >
              > > DRStarman2001@... wrote:
              > > >>
              > > We know from Anthroposophy that there are three paths to the spirit---
              > > the old yogic one, the Christian devotional one, and the modern
              > > "Rosicrucian" one. The Christian devotional one was a path of feeling, a
              > > path of initiation with the thinking left out. It is no longer appropriate
              > > for most modern-day humans. The modern one has to do with science,
              > > objective knowledge, and the will. It involves thinking exercises,
              > > CONSCIOUS feeling exercises and exercising the will. Now, a person
              > > following this path eventually has an encounter with a being which, if he
              > > has a Christian upbringing, he will quickly recognize as the Christ. (If he
              > > does not, he may call it by another name.) See, for instance, Steiner's
              > > lecture " The Death of a God And Its Fruits in Humanity" of May 5th 1912.
              > > So the "anthroposophic angle" is that it is an objective reality which a
              > > spiritual scientist contacts, and which contact can be induced by a
              > > specific path of training rather than left to luck. When following this
              > > training, we also learn to distinguish the true spiritual reality from
              > > false copies, and we also find that there are "false Christs" or in other
              > > words phantom images of the real one, which certain erroneous spiritual
              > > paths induce, as can be seen in many 'Christian' churches today. One can
              > > distinguish these from the real one with training as easily as the eye
              > > distinguishes red from blue.
              > > The "anthroposophical angle" is rather like ours could be said to be on
              > > painting, in that, while many people just jump into painting and do it by
              > > pure irrational feeling with no thinking involved, doing nothing
              > > consciously, a painter pursuing painting as a spiritual path through
              > > Anthroposophy accompanies his Will and feeling with clear thinking about
              > > darkness in front of light, light in front of darkness, warm and cool
              > > colors, etc. What is produced is the result of training and conscious
              > > action. Similarly, what a spiritual scientist says about Buddha or Christ
              > > does not come from the realm of blind faith, but of knowledge, arrived at
              > > by specific exercises as part of a comprehensive training. Once this is
              > > achieved, insight may be gained into old religious traditions, which merely
              > > passing on the traditions without this knowledge does not include.
              > > -Starman
              > >
              > http://www.DrStarman.net
            • Lee Peters
              Joel, This seems to jive with my minor readings of Steiner but I am still confused about the nature of :Ordinary thinkingOrganic thinkingLiving thinking What
              Message 6 of 16 , Apr 30 4:29 PM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Joel,
                 
                This seems to jive with my minor readings of Steiner but I am still confused about the nature of :
                Ordinary thinking
                Organic thinking
                Living thinking
                 
                What are these types of thinking in practical and spiritual states of human undertanding??
                 
                Lee


                Do you Yahoo!?
                The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
              • Lee Peters
                DRStarman2001@aol.com wrote: From: Lee Peters Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Angle on Christianity Thanks for this clear explanation. What
                Message 7 of 16 , Apr 30 4:40 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment


                  DRStarman2001@... wrote:

                  From: Lee Peters <walkker9@...>
                  Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Angle on Christianity

                  Thanks for this clear explanation.  What is the Rosicrucian path by the way?  and are any Anthroposophists now or passed. who accomplished what Steiner did;and if not, why hasn't this path produced more initiates and seers that can continue his visionary work? Lee




                  ******* It is something that needs to be taken up as a way of life, with the whole being, including, for instance, using the very personal forces we move our bodies with.

                  Could you explain more what you mean in the above statement??

                  Many people also confuse it with other half-conscious or subconscious paths, like Eastern or pagan ones. They want to abandon reason. This path is not one like that: it is constantly directed by your conscious rational mind. Not taking it up enough or taking up in a wrong way is the reason for the poor results exhibited.
                  -Starman

                  Since I have some experience with Yoga and Zen, I am not quite clear about what you mean here The wakefulness "exercises" in Zen and Vapassina meditation demand a high degree of conscious attention and not falling asleep. It is an active/passive observing process. It is certainly not semi conscious. In fact, during these practices, psychic experiences are common with lights being seen, color phenomena, etc. but its rarely talked about. Buddhism is highly reasonable and logical in its own way. The question I have then- why is reason so often considered the enemy of consciousness and spiritual work by virtually every other path. The conventional reasoning process does not do well with experiences that "defy" reason at times ( like having a clear sense of separation of the "self" from the physical body.This form of spiritual discrimination is part of all paths, it seems.

                  Lee


                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
                • Joel Wendt
                  ... Dear Lee, I ll make stab at this, but you have to accept that this will be a map and not the territory. You have to personally investigate the territory
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 1, 2003
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Wed, 2003-04-30 at 19:29, Lee Peters wrote:
                    > Joel, This seems to jive with my minor readings of Steiner but I am
                    > still confused about the nature of :
                    > Ordinary thinking
                    > Organic thinking
                    > Living thinking
                    > What are these types of thinking in practical and spiritual states
                    > of human understanding?

                    Dear Lee,

                    I'll make stab at this, but you have to accept that this will be a map
                    and not the territory. You have to personally investigate the territory
                    to really appreciate that to which I am referring. This map is also an
                    oversimplification, with all the problems that go with that fact.

                    Ordinary Thinking: discursive thinking, the inner wording common to our
                    normal consciousness. The spirit speaks the soul hears. Everything is
                    inward. It's what the harried mother is referring to when she says to
                    the screaming kids "stop that! I can't hear myself think!"

                    We don't always just do this kind of thinking, but rather have moments
                    of the other types out of a kind of instinctive wisdom, but usually we
                    just "think" in the inner wording. In that mode (discursive thinking)
                    we do what we normally call "reasoning", that is we might be reflective
                    on some kind of problem and try to work it out logically, so that there
                    is a stream of inner wording while we follow out our concerns. This
                    thinking most easily deals with quantities, and is typical of the kind
                    of thinking done in natural science, which works with abstractions and
                    tends to assume cause and effect relationships. This kind of thinking
                    assumes also that ideas are a product of the brain, and something not at
                    all connected to the outer world - that is that there is a disconnect
                    between an object (something in our experience, what Steiner in The
                    Philosophy of Freedom calls a percept), and the idea we have of it (what
                    Steiner calls there a concept).

                    In ordinary consciousness percept and concept are divided, and the
                    thinking subject is assumed to be separate from the sense object.

                    Sometimes this will instinctively wander over into...

                    Organic Thinking: this is basically a picture thinking, and the
                    imagination is quite important here. It is also a qualitative
                    characterizing thinking. We sometimes do this at the same time as the
                    inner wording, particularly if what we are thinking about naturally has
                    a picture component. Certainly a fantasy is picturing, and some
                    processes of invention involve picturing (Edison's notes on his
                    inventions always began with a drawing, as if he first intuited the
                    "picture" of the device before starting to solve the practical problems
                    of realizing it).

                    Mainly what Steiner was referring to with the idea of Organic Thinking
                    was what Goethe pioneered, namely living into the "appearances" with the
                    thinking, recreating them in the consciousness (G' called it "exact
                    sensorial phantasy). This kind of thinking forgoes abstractions and the
                    linear cause and effect assumptions, and works with the idea that Nature
                    has both Being and Consciousness, such that the appearances (Maya) are a
                    kind of "speech". We don't need to invent a theory of what Nature is
                    about, because Nature is "instructing" us right in front of our faces if
                    we will get our inner subjective judgments out of the way.

                    Nature isn't a "thing", but rather some"one" with whom we can have an I
                    and Thou relationship. Emerson puts it this way: "Nature is a thought
                    incarnate, and turns to thought again as ice becomes water and then
                    gas. The world is mind precipitated and the volatile essence is forever
                    escaping into the state of free thought." And Steiner spoke of it this
                    way: "What takes place in human consciousness is the interpretation of
                    Nature to itself. Thought is the last member in the series of processes
                    whereby Nature is formed".

                    Now in order to live through thinking into the world of the appearances,
                    with have to think "with" them, not "about" them. In recreating in the
                    imagination various aspects of the world, we learn to "see" it rather
                    then form abstractions about it. This allows Organic Thinking to take
                    hold of the qualitative aspects of reality - the life elements.

                    Now this thinking also blends over into moral or living thinking, which
                    itself is occasionally experienced by ordinary mind in those intuitive
                    insights without "logic", that we represent in cartoons with the image
                    of someone with a light bulb going off over their heads...

                    Living Thinking: In Living Thinking the "I and Thou" relationship
                    disappears, and we are no longer in the appearances, but rather have an
                    "I and I" relationship with the spiritual reality "embodied" in the
                    appearances. Living Thinking is thinking subject meeting thinking
                    subject. I think it, it thinks me.

                    Of course, here we have to abandon our ordinary conception of "think"
                    entirely, for it is no longer a kind of lazy inner gesture in which
                    words spill across the arena of the mind, but rather something fully
                    willed in a concentrated fashion, where our own conventional sense of
                    "I" disappears into attention. We are fully "attention", focused on
                    another that is fully attention. Because of the mutual intention latent
                    in the attention we "meet".

                    Kuhlewind advises us to approach this by first learning to concentrate
                    on a "theme", a set of pure concepts, and each practitioner of living
                    thinking has something to suggest in this regard, but everyone is really
                    left to their own "work" in the end.

                    Now there are all manner of disciplines to be learned on this path of
                    developing the "thinking" into its full potential. We have to discover
                    and master the nature of antipathies and sympathies - the unconscious
                    feeling judgments which influence thinking. We have to come to terms
                    with and be awake to our moral intention in thinking - what good do we
                    choose to live out of in "thinking".

                    Mostly we have to face life, for in life (our biography) is the main
                    moral work, and it is this moral work that underpins everything else.
                    If outer life is neglected, then our inner life won't be able to unfold
                    out of the necessary richness of moral experience. It is the biography
                    that molds our spirit and soul characteristics, and then it is these
                    characteristics that form the qualitative and moral nature of our
                    meditative and contemplative life.

                    For example, pursuing enlightenment or initiation is a very egocentric
                    objective. It can become a kind of illness, which is partially why we
                    have monasteries, and isolate people who believe they can have a special
                    relationship with the Divine. But life humbles us, and knocks the
                    corners off of our egocentric spiritual ambitions. Then our spirit is
                    forged in the fires of the biography in the right way so that authentic
                    spiritual experience becomes possible through our no longer being so
                    full of ourselves.

                    warm regards,
                    joel
                  • Evert Hoff
                    Could someone give me a reference to where Steiner defines the concept of Living Thinking? Thanks, Evert
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 1, 2003
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Could someone give me a reference to where Steiner defines the concept
                      of Living Thinking?

                      Thanks,

                      Evert
                    • Joel Wendt
                      Dear Evert, You are chasing a horse here that doesn t exist. The best we can do is walk around living thinking and use words and concepts to point a finger in
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 1, 2003
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Evert,

                        You are chasing a horse here that doesn't exist. The best we can do is
                        walk around living thinking and use words and concepts to point a finger
                        in its direction.

                        The best I ever heard about it was an analogy, by someone who had
                        achieved it. Its like making love to the point where you loose yourself
                        in the other. Except that talking about it (as an experience) has the
                        same quality as masturbation does to making love this way.

                        The former is an empty imitation, and the latter beyond description.

                        There is no definition of the concept of living thinking that could
                        have any meaning.

                        warm regards,
                        joel

                        On Thu, 2003-05-01 at 11:51, Evert Hoff wrote:
                        > Could someone give me a reference to where Steiner defines the concept
                        > of Living Thinking?
                        >
                        > Thanks,
                        >
                        > 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/
                        >
                        >
                      • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                        ... ******* It is something that needs to be taken up as a way of life, with the whole being, including, for instance, using the very personal forces we move
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 1, 2003
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          >> What is the Rosicrucian path by the way?

                          ******* It is something that needs to be taken up as a way of life, with the whole being, including, for instance, using the very personal forces we move our bodies with.

                          >>Could you explain more what you mean in the above statement??


                          *******Sure, just as priests dedicate their entire bodies to performing a ritual, or athletes will adopt an 'ascetic' way of life to prepare for a competition, or a dancer will dedicate her entire being to her art, so the pursuit of spiritual science involves not only the head, but must go into the whole of life--- all your deeds, one by one.  You can't take it up only with the intellect and leave aside how you speak, the things you do in daily life, etc. It has to work into and transform all the layers of your being. Your every word and gesture has to be thought through and performed from out of your study, as in performing a ritual. Steiner said that in the future, a scientist working at his laboratory table would come to regard it as it his altar. for instance.


                          *******Many people also confuse it with other half-conscious or subconscious paths, like Eastern or pagan ones. They want to abandon reason. This path is not one like that: it is constantly directed by your conscious rational mind.

                          >>Since I have some experience with Yoga and Zen, I am not quite clear about what you mean here The wakefulness "exercises" in Zen and Vapassina meditation demand a high degree of conscious attention and not falling asleep. It is an active/passive observing process. It is certainly not semi conscious. In fact, during these practices, psychic experiences are common with lights being seen, color phenomena, etc. but its rarely talked about. Buddhism is highly reasonable and logical in its own way. The question I have then- why is reason so often considered the enemy of consciousness and spiritual work by virtually every other path.


                          *******There are what I meant by 'Eastern' paths and then there are some that have combined  their older elements with more modern, Western consciousness. I meant the ones that negate the use of the intellect and instead focus on breathing and other subconscious processes of the body,

                             The reason was often stated by Steiner, that these ancient Asian paths worship  the life forces-- which we once had the use of before the modern intellect came into being. Their traditions recall a time when we had the use of these forces, and then what they perceived as 'lower' intellectual knowledge arose-- and therefore they teach that this has to be put aside in order to get the other back.

                             But the path of spiritual science involves changing the abstract intellect into a living thinking, one which will not block the life forces, but rather lets them through. Some paths have this understanding that one's awareness must be increased, as anthroposophy does, while others go around consciousness and use subconscious stuff. We know that this opens you up to the influence of lower beings.



                          >>The conventional reasoning process does not do well with experiences that "defy"
                          reason at times ( like having a clear sense of separation of the "self" from the physical body.This form of spiritual discrimination is part of all paths, it seems.
                          Lee

                          ******But actually pure thinking, reasoning about whatever you observe, IS carried over into the body-free state. It's a falsehood that our thinking is only good for sense-perceptible objects: it is good for anything observed, through any senses, including those of the soul and the spirit. When the self is separated from the physical body, it does indeed use reason--- only pure reason, pure thinking, as in mathematics and geometry, not the mere 'having of thought-images' that most people use in daily life, which is dependent on the body.

                          -Starman
                          http://www.DrStarman.net
                        • DRStarman2001@aol.com
                          ... *******The ancient Greeks used to say that Man thought with his heart, not with his head. This was a way of saying real thinking is done with the entire
                          Message 12 of 16 , May 1, 2003
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com writes:
                            Subject: Living Thinking
                            Could someone give me a reference to where Steiner defines the concept
                            of Living Thinking?
                            Thanks,
                            Evert


                            *******The ancient Greeks used to say that Man thought with his heart, not with his head. This was a way of saying real thinking is done with the entire being. Living thinking has all the Will and feeling put into it that you use in living your life.
                                Steiner sometimes called it having life in thinking, sometimes 'wollen in gedanken', Will in thinking.
                               One of the best collections I know of his various descriptions of it is the book "Rudolf Steiner on His Book The Philosophy of Freedom" arranged by Otto Palmer. It's not online at the Steiner electronic library, but they have a summary of it here and I believe a note that it's available from the Anthroposophical Press:

                            http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/sumries.txt;bytes=90360-90747

                            -Starman
                            http://www.DrStarman.net
                          • jeff barney
                            Also see research in neurocardiology. Joseph chilton pearce is an exellent interpreter of info one won t see for years to come in conventional research
                            Message 13 of 16 , May 2, 2003
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Also see research in neurocardiology. Joseph chilton pearce is an exellent interpreter of info one won't see for years to come in conventional research journals.

                              DRStarman2001@... wrote:
                              anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com writes:
                              Subject: Living Thinking
                              Could someone give me a reference to where Steiner defines the concept
                              of Living Thinking?
                              Thanks,
                              Evert


                              *******The ancient Greeks used to say that Man thought with his heart, not with his head. This was a way of saying real thinking is done with the entire being. Living thinking has all the Will and feeling put into it that you use in living your life.
                                  Steiner sometimes called it having life in thinking, sometimes 'wollen in gedanken', Will in thinking.
                                 One of the best collections I know of his various descriptions of it is the book "Rudolf Steiner on His Book The Philosophy of Freedom" arranged by Otto Palmer. It's not online at the Steiner electronic library, but they have a summary of it here and I believe a note that it's available from the Anthroposophical Press:

                              http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/sumries.txt;bytes=90360-90747

                              -Starman
                              http://www.DrStarman.net

                              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.
                            • Lee Peters
                              That was great ( about the Rosicrucian Path and the blending of East and West in some eastern approaches now in use. But I have a question about this
                              Message 14 of 16 , May 2, 2003
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment

                                That was great ( about the Rosicrucian Path and the blending of East and West in some "
                                eastern approaches" now in use. But I have a question about this below.
                                Can you or Steiner or someone else describe exactly how pure thinking and reason are actually experienced in the the out of body condition. Do we think and form words like here on earth? Descriptions I have run across state that as "travelers" think, it instantly manifests around them. Telepathy is natural and seeing the reading the minds of others equally so.

                                 

                                What is your knowledge here? How do we learn to "think" and reason in this new state?

                                Lee


                                ******But actually pure thinking, reasoning about whatever you observe, IS carried over into the body-free state. It's a falsehood that our thinking is only good for sense-perceptible objects: it is good for anything observed, through any senses, including those of the soul and the spirit. When the self is separated from the physical body, it does indeed use reason--- only pure reason, pure thinking, as in mathematics and geometry, not the mere 'having of thought-images' that most people use in daily life, which is dependent on the body.

                                -Starman
                                http://www.DrStarman.net

                                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.

                              • elaineupton2001
                                Dear Lee and all, Lee, you asked about whether there are any initiates besides Steiner (in the Steinerian vein, I assume, you mean). There is the danger for
                                Message 15 of 16 , May 2, 2003
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Lee and all,

                                  Lee, you asked about whether there are any initiates besides Steiner
                                  (in the Steinerian vein, I assume, you mean). There is the danger for
                                  some of us of getting into the superstar mode and looking for
                                  initiates to look up to or worship. So, in looking for initiates, I
                                  feel a need to be careful.

                                  Having said that, let me say that some consider Orland Bishop to be
                                  an initiate. I don't know if he publishes (in print) anything, but he
                                  is involved in a lot of social initiatives, with another great
                                  anthroposophic leader (in my opinion) and that one is Nicanor Perlas,
                                  a Phillipine who walks the talk and brings it down to Earth in
                                  relationship to Cosmos. Nicanor Perlas has things on the web,
                                  especially as regards Threefolding and Civil Society and the work to
                                  overcome corporate globalism. Also in this realm is the work of
                                  Jesiaiah Ben-Aharon.

                                  Owen Barfield, now on the other side, is someone also whose work
                                  seems to me quite advanced and enlightened.

                                  I personally cannot say if any of these men are "initiates', but I do
                                  feel they have an immense lot to offer.

                                  I think there are women who show up in other traditions who have
                                  levels of initiation. Some of them are called curanderos and known by
                                  other titles, and they have achieved certain levels.

                                  The question is (or so I see it): what, or who, lights the light
                                  within you?

                                  There are, as you know, various levels and kinds of initiation (as
                                  pointed out by you, Starman, Joel and others in the references to
                                  Steiner). The important thing to me is to follow the highest
                                  promptings of Spirit in oneself, as best one can, and to study all
                                  great teachings that speak to one. The circle will be ever expanding,
                                  even if it is narrow at first. If the intention is high, then help
                                  will be found. As Steiner says (and I agree) if the intention is not
                                  just egotistical, but the work is for the "ennoblement of humanity
                                  and the upliftment of the cosmos" then one is on the right path.

                                  Aho!
                                  elaine
                                • Lee Peters
                                  Thanks Elaine. I was really looking for others who had possibly confirmed and brought the similar or new knowledge to the world since Steiner. Though I
                                  Message 16 of 16 , May 3, 2003
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Thanks Elaine.
                                     
                                    I was really looking for others who had possibly confirmed and brought the similar or new knowledge to the world since Steiner. Though I greatly appreciate his work and accomplishments, I feel his writings are dated and will not speak to America or modern people very well. I am not just looking for edited summaries but real breakthroughs in the same path. I use his works but rarely can offer them to others (like Theosophy or Occult Science)- they read a little can not continue on.
                                    Lee

                                    elaineupton2001 <elaineupton@...> wrote:
                                    Dear Lee and all,

                                    Lee, you asked about whether there are any initiates besides Steiner
                                    (in the Steinerian vein, I assume, you mean). There is the danger for
                                    some of us of getting into the superstar mode and looking for
                                    initiates to look up to or worship. So, in looking for initiates, I
                                    feel a need to be careful.

                                    Having said that, let me say that some consider Orland Bishop to be
                                    an initiate. I don't know if he publishes (in print) anything, but he
                                    is involved in a lot of social initiatives, with another great
                                    anthroposophic leader (in my opinion) and that one is Nicanor Perlas,
                                    a Phillipine who walks the talk and brings it down to Earth in
                                    relationship to Cosmos. Nicanor Perlas has things on the web,
                                    especially as regards Threefolding and Civil Society and the work to
                                    overcome corporate globalism. Also in this realm is the work of
                                    Jesiaiah Ben-Aharon.

                                    Owen Barfield, now on the other side, is someone also whose work
                                    seems to me quite advanced and enlightened.

                                    I personally cannot say if any of these men are "initiates', but I do
                                    feel they have an immense lot to offer.

                                    I think there are women who show up in other traditions who have
                                    levels of initiation. Some of them are called curanderos and known by
                                    other titles, and they have achieved certain levels.

                                    The question is (or so I see it): what, or who, lights the light
                                    within you?

                                    There are, as you know, various levels and kinds of initiation (as
                                    pointed out by you, Starman, Joel and others in the references to
                                    Steiner). The important thing to me is to follow the highest
                                    promptings of Spirit in oneself, as best one can, and to study all
                                    great teachings that speak to one. The circle will be ever expanding,
                                    even if it is narrow at first. If the intention is high, then help
                                    will be found. As Steiner says (and I agree) if the intention is not
                                    just egotistical, but the work is for the "ennoblement of humanity
                                    and the upliftment of the cosmos" then one is on the right path.

                                    Aho!
                                    elaine



                                    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.

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