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

Response to Dottie

Expand Messages
  • golden3000997@cs.com
    Dear Dottie, Thank you for your response to my posting. I must admit, I was afraid of worse! I will try to do justice to your questions, although a lot of the
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 6, 2003
      Dear Dottie,

      Thank you for your response to my posting. I must admit, I was afraid of
      worse! I will try to do justice to your questions, although a lot of the things I
      brought up are big topics. It's getting late, so I will have to work on it
      this weekend, probably.

      I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for around 15 years. I have
      been away from it for a decade and would like to go back if I can find a school
      community that can handle my radicalism.

      I understand the heart impulse very well. My own heart is very deeply
      involved. But Anthroposophy per se requires a lot of "head" work, too! We have to
      really understand what is going on around us on sense-perceptible and
      super-sensible planes.

      Just a few points:
      1. You noticed the simplistic element in the Koran - that's what I meant by a
      mish mash re-telling of Old Testament stories - very popular all over the
      middle east at the time.

      2. I would never equate the "Deed of Christ" and man's choices in his actions
      at any level. This is really off the mark. What Christ chose to do and why is
      far, far beyond man's capacity of choice at any level. He was not a "man"
      though incarnated in the flesh. Men's choices are mundane in comparison, but this
      does not, to me, mean that mankind has to be so very stupid and greedy about
      them!

      3. I have worked through a lot of Christology in myself through reading and
      discussion. I won't claim any special revelation or vision, but I have had very
      strong experiences supported by my studies. What future ages may have the
      maturity to understand, once we grow past the patriarchal power structure of the
      past ? 5,000 years, is that "God" is not male! "God" (and I put this most
      carefully in quotes because it is so presumptuous in a way to say what God is or
      is not) is the Divine Oneness of the Universe from which all eminates, or has
      its being. I don't know if you have studied the Bible in the light of
      Anthroposophy yet, but there are many "open secrets". If you really do read it and take
      it word for word as truth, you really have to come to vastly different
      conclusions than any church I have encountered so far. Read Genesis and the line
      (mind you this is BEFORE Adam and Eve)

      Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he
      created them; male and female he created them."

      New revised standard version, but the same words "male & female he created
      them" in all versions I have read so far. Only later comes the Adam & Eve story.
      Read Steiner's "Occult Science" for the explanation.

      Anyway, this to illustrate the male/female unity of God and the manifestation
      of God as male and female on the physical plane. Why then interpret the
      Trinity as God the Father, God the Son (Sun - shouldn't really be male in a strict
      sense, but another topic) and God the Holy Spirit and interpret this as a
      "He"? It is the Holy Spirit which INCARNATES the LOGOS or Sun of God, and through
      whom did He incarnate in the physical? And who was specifically present in the
      upper room at Pentecost with the disciples? I have some pictures somewhere
      around here of Mary in the middle of the circle as they receive the flame above
      their heads - most rosary pictures have it that way. Again, SHE brings it down
      into them. SHE IS the manifestation of the Divine Female. And not just ONE
      Mary - but THREE Marys. You need to read The Gospel of St. Luke by Steiner for a
      really good explanation of the two Mother Marys - the Eva Maria and the Maria
      Sophia. But I see Mary Magdalene as the third in the Female Trinity of God.
      She was the one who first saw the Risen Christ. There were three Marys
      accounted for at the foot of the cross, also.

      Mind you, this is not a full answer, just pointing in the direction of one.
      Of course the Maria Sophia is of the past in terms of mankind's past. But her
      IMPULSE is of the future - it is the impulse of TRANSFORMATION. God = BEING
      Christ = CREATION Holy Spirit = TRANSFORMATION. Everything that is alive,
      physically or spiritually must transform, change, must dissolve and resurrect in a
      new form. Otherwise it stagnates, dies and decays or crystallizes. That is what
      Ahriman wants the world to do. Achieve "perfection" then crystallize and stay
      frozen for all eternity. Lucifer wants us to wallow in a spiritual mire -
      caught in our own spiritual cesspool of stagnant, individualized spirituality
      which has no relationship or connection with the true spiritual world. Ahriman and
      Lucifer have their reality both internally and externally. They also have
      their rightful place in which their works are not "evil", in fact necessary and
      good. But when man succumbs to them unknowingly and allows them to take over
      his ego and limit or corrupt his progress, then they become "evil" on our plane
      of existence. Read "Lucifer and Ahriman" by Steiner. It is not a question of
      hating either of them. The peach window of the Goetheanum is wonderful where it
      depicts The Christ loosening Ahriman from his chains. But it is the Christ in
      us that must do this work. It is the I AM in us that must learn to fact
      reality and to deal with it in a transformative way.

      If you want to look at the question of war with your heart - read Mark
      Twain's "The War Prayer." Pretty much sums it up, I think.

      In regard to being "as a child" in heart-openess and a willingness to learn
      and to share with others, I think that it is a natural and good part of
      activating that love-force within you. However, there is a spiritual maturity that
      comes from thinking that can, for some people initate that heart force, for
      others, strengthen and support it. From "A Wind at the Door" by Madeline L'Engle,
      there is a passage about love that really defines it for me. It is not an
      emotion - love is what you do!!!!

      Again, it's late and I have to go work in the belly of the beast tomorrow, so
      I will say good night and promise to give more later, if you really want me
      to.

      Blessings,
      Christine
    • dottie zold
      Christine ... Hi Chrstine, What do you mean by your radicalism? What class did you teach in Waldorf and what age group I am wondering? What did you feel you
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 7, 2003
        Christine
        > I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for
        > around 15 years. I have
        > been away from it for a decade and would like to go
        > back if I can find a school
        > community that can handle my radicalism.


        Hi Chrstine,

        What do you mean by your radicalism? What class did
        you teach in Waldorf and what age group I am
        wondering? What did you feel you were supposed to lie
        about when you were there? How do you think Dr.
        Steiners teachings are more in line with how you would
        do things versus the way they are being done?

        Christine
        > I understand the heart impulse very well. My own
        > heart is very deeply
        > involved. But Anthroposophy per se requires a lot of
        > "head" work, too!

        Dottie

        Well the way I see it the two must be married in a
        sense. It seems to me they mostly work seperately and
        the more enlightened we become the more chances are
        that the mind is won over by the spirit.

        Christine
        > Just a few points:
        > 1. You noticed the simplistic element in the Koran -
        > that's what I meant by a
        > mish mash re-telling of Old Testament stories - very
        > popular all over the
        > middle east at the time.

        Dottie

        Yes but the same thing happened with the stories of
        the Bible as well as the Torah. These can be traced
        back to the Buddist/Hindu Traditions as well. The
        story has been told for thousands of years before
        Christ came. We may have a different take on them but
        most of their forms come from the ancient archtypes of
        humanity itself. We just found another way to tell the
        story imo.

        Christine
        > 2. I would never equate the "Deed of Christ" and
        > man's choices in his actions
        > at any level. This is really off the mark. What
        > Christ chose to do and why is
        > far, far beyond man's capacity of choice at any
        > level.

        Dottie

        Well, I would have to disagree. I believe what Christ
        did is what we all must do to know the Father. I don't
        believe there is another way.

        Christine
        He was not a "man"
        > though incarnated in the flesh. Men's choices are
        > mundane in comparison, but this
        > does not, to me, mean that mankind has to be so very
        > stupid and greedy about
        > them!

        Dottie

        Again, I disagree. It will take great Christ like
        courage and Christ like will power to ward off all
        that has been given to us in this physical
        incarnation. We must reach up and touch the Heavens
        with our hearts. No easy task. Christ reached down and
        touched the Earth with His heart. And he did become
        human in my mind. Christ chose the same path, albeit a
        bit differently, that happens when we become human
        from the spiritual world. imo. Christ got to become
        man and to experience it just as our spirits
        experience this physical reality. And the spirit of
        Christ 'sank' down in man to know all that we as man
        know and feel. I can't take that away from Christ.

        Christine
        > 3. I have worked through a lot of Christology in
        > myself through reading and
        > discussion. I won't claim any special revelation or
        > vision, but I have had very
        > strong experiences supported by my studies. What
        > future ages may have the
        > maturity to understand, once we grow past the
        > patriarchal power structure of the
        > past ? 5,000 years, is that "God" is not male! "God"
        > (and I put this most
        > carefully in quotes because it is so presumptuous in
        > a way to say what God is or
        > is not) is the Divine Oneness of the Universe from
        > which all eminates, or has
        > its being. I don't know if you have studied the
        > Bible in the light of
        > Anthroposophy yet, but there are many "open
        > secrets". If you really do read it and take
        > it word for word as truth, you really have to come
        > to vastly different
        > conclusions than any church I have encountered so
        > far. Read Genesis and the line
        > (mind you this is BEFORE Adam and Eve)
        >

        Dear Christine,

        I have had confirmation on many of the things you
        speak of above. This is my study for some reason. It
        did not start out as that but I was guided to find
        much of what you speak of regarding the Marys. And
        most of it came through vision type of experiences or
        at least guided type of experiences. And it was mostly
        shocking although it was also instantaneously self
        evident. But then I am a doubting Thomas in a sense
        and my spirit has to work double for me to really
        believe of a thing that has been shown or seen by me.

        Christine
        > Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image,
        > in the image of God he
        > created them; male and female he created them."

        Dottie

        But what does that really mean? See for me, my work is
        leading me to find the Father and I think the Father
        is the physical reality and that is why we are all
        male and female. I think that is what Magdalene meant
        when she said 'he is going to make males of us all'(
        meaning Christ)...to me that means they are all going
        to become Suns or rayers of God. I believe the female
        part of us is the spirit. Therefore we, as human
        beings are all male and female. This thought is not
        really confirmed in me but it is jostling around
        looking for the Father. As well I recall Dr. Steiner
        stating that the Father is asleep. Well, what does
        that mean? Asleep?

        Christine
        > Anyway, this to illustrate the male/female unity of
        > God and the manifestation
        > of God as male and female on the physical plane. Why
        > then interpret the
        > Trinity as God the Father, God the Son (Sun -
        > shouldn't really be male in a strict
        > sense, but another topic) and God the Holy Spirit
        > and interpret this as a
        > "He"? It is the Holy Spirit which INCARNATES the
        > LOGOS or Sun of God, and through
        > whom did He incarnate in the physical? And who was
        > specifically present in the
        > upper room at Pentecost with the disciples? I have
        > some pictures somewhere
        > around here of Mary in the middle of the circle as
        > they receive the flame above
        > their heads - most rosary pictures have it that way.
        > Again, SHE brings it down
        > into them. SHE IS the manifestation of the Divine
        > Female. And not just ONE
        > Mary - but THREE Marys.


        Dottie

        I am wondering if you see Magdalene sitting to the
        left of Jesus at the last Supper? Do you see her in
        the room? Have you ever seen the painting, don't know
        whose it is, where the finger of God reaches out and
        touches the finger of man? Up until this year I
        thought that was the whole painted picture. It is not.
        Under the bridge of a place I drive past is a mural of
        the whole picture or at least what I can feel is the
        whole picture: God with his arms enfolding a woman and
        a child. Incredible.

        There is a book called Crone, don't recall the author
        at the moment, that really allowed me to move further
        on my search for the Marys' mystery. It was there that
        I was able to connect the symbolism of the three
        Marys. And they can be found throughout history of the
        OT as well as Hindu/Buddist/Sumerian texts.

        Christine
        But I see Mary Magdalene as the third in the
        > Female Trinity of God.

        Dottie

        I see her there as well. For me she is the Daughter
        Voice of God. Never really thought of it being the
        third but it makes sense if we look at mother father
        child.

        Christine
        > She was the one who first saw the Risen Christ.
        > There were three Marys
        > accounted for at the foot of the cross, also.

        Dottie

        I am wondering if you see her at the end of John on
        the beach with Christ? Do you see her as the one Peter
        takes issue with and Christ tells him to mind his own
        business in a sense?

        Christine
        > Mind you, this is not a full answer, just pointing
        > in the direction of one.
        > Of course the Maria Sophia is of the past in terms
        > of mankind's past. But her
        > IMPULSE is of the future - it is the impulse of
        > TRANSFORMATION. God = BEING
        > Christ = CREATION Holy Spirit = TRANSFORMATION.

        Dottie

        When you say Transformation I think of creative. To me
        She is the creative energy and it transcends any past
        present or future ideals in my thoughts.

        Christine
        > Everything that is alive,
        > physically or spiritually must transform, change,
        > must dissolve and resurrect in a
        > new form. Otherwise it stagnates, dies and decays or
        > crystallizes. That is what
        > Ahriman wants the world to do. Achieve "perfection"
        > then crystallize and stay
        > frozen for all eternity. Lucifer wants us to wallow
        > in a spiritual mire -
        > caught in our own spiritual cesspool of stagnant,
        > individualized spirituality
        > which has no relationship or connection with the
        > true spiritual world.

        Dottie

        I see Lucifer as my lower self. I find Luci, the
        feminine aspect of Lucifer is very seductive off our
        own wants and desires. I watch her kick mans ass all
        the time through artists and musicians particulary and
        it makes me laugh so hard when it is my friends. She's
        just waiting to be played with in a sense. And she
        puts herself in front of all hoping to tempt. But it
        is us who are tempted. It is not her fault as far as I
        can see.

        Christine
        Ahriman and
        > Lucifer have their reality both internally and
        > externally. But when man succumbs to them
        unknowingly and
        > allows them to take over
        > his ego and limit or corrupt his progress, then they
        > become "evil" on our plane
        > of existence.

        Dottie

        I don't know about 'them' taking over mans ego. I am
        thinking it is man who gives it over out of laziness
        or lethargy, loss of hope due to interaction with
        other humans who have lost hope and the spirit not
        being put forth as the most important. And then we
        blame them.

        Christine
        Read "Lucifer and Ahriman" by Steiner.
        > It is not a question of
        > hating either of them.

        Dottie

        The problem I have is people blaming them. Tarjie has
        an amazing poem/story on his page of Christ and
        Lucifer. I will see if I can find it.

        Christine
        > In regard to being "as a child" in heart-openess and
        > a willingness to learn
        > and to share with others, I think that it is a
        > natural and good part of
        > activating that love-force within you. However,
        > there is a spiritual maturity that
        > comes from thinking that can, for some people
        > initate that heart force, for
        > others, strengthen and support it.

        Dottie

        I am teaching my heart to think not my mind to feel.

        Christine
        Again, it's late and I have to go work in the belly
        > of the beast tomorrow, so
        > I will say good night and promise to give more
        > later, if you really want me
        > to.

        Christine, I love your thoughts and forwardness in
        them. You are right about the Marys and there is so
        much more to learn about the mystery. And its good and
        I believe this is what the war is leading to: the
        opening of the Feminine force within all of us on a
        conscious level.

        Good Work,

        Dottie

        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
        http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
      • Tarjei Straume
        ... Whatever you do, Christine, don t go anywhere. Please stick around. You sound anarchosophical. Tarjei http://uncletaz.com/
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 7, 2003
          At 05:27 07.11.2003, Christine wrote:

          >I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for around 15 years. I have
          >been away from it for a decade and would like to go back if I can find a
          >school community that can handle my radicalism.

          Whatever you do, Christine, don't go anywhere. Please stick around. You
          "sound" anarchosophical.


          Tarjei
          http://uncletaz.com/
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.