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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Candor/Dottie/Germane

Expand Messages
  • Frank Thomas Smith
    ... G58 old boy, you may have been gone for a while and missed Dottie s photo!
    Message 1 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      gaelman58 wrote:

      > I was struck by your mention of the "visitation" by Miss Magdalene.
      > With experiences like that it seems to me that one should get
      > immediately "practical" and grounded.

      G58 old boy, you may have been gone for a while and missed Dottie's photo!
    • gaelman58
      ... received ... happened ... I agree Steve, the physical body and the truly important questions to ask...some time ago I gave extended thought to the notion
      Message 2 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale"
        <sardisian01@y...> wrote:
        > "Now, did this sister soul, sorry fellows, did this sister soul
        > leave when the Zarathusthra soul came in or is it that
        > this sister soul stayed with the Zarathusthra and then
        > departed with the Zarathusthra into the 'stepmother'
        > at the Jordan. Either way, once again, we have a
        > mention of a sister soul of Adam."
        >
        > Jesus retained his soul until the very end. His stepmother
        received
        > the spirit of her son while they sat at table, and then Jesus went
        > down the road. He was able to retain his own germinating ego
        > because it was his first incarnation. He also bore the linga
        > sharira of the stepmother's son, which had helped with the karmic
        > necessities of a child who was a veritable unstamped template,
        > having no guilt of his own, and a path that had to be walked.
        >
        > The really truly important question to ask though is: What
        happened
        > to the physical body? Where did it go, and why?
        >
        > Steve

        I agree Steve, the physical body and the truly important questions
        to ask...some time ago I gave extended thought to the notion of the
        Resurrection Body with the hope of gaining some insight...I wasn't
        terribly successful...it's something one has to approach with a
        measure of sobriety and clarity...especially with the very words one
        wishes to use. One has to assume that the only approach to such
        questions would be the Spiritual Scientific approach given by
        Steiner...and my guess is that there would have to be an emphasis on
        the "scientific" aspect, eh?...regards, Gaelman
      • gaelman58
        ... Dottie: I happen to be reading Steiner s lecture, The Mission of Reverence , 28 Oct 1909 in the book, Love and its Meaning in the World ...it s funny
        Message 3 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
          <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
          > Gaelman:
          > > Can I make a suggestion?...why don't you just ask
          > > Saint Mary
          > > Magdalene about it?...Steiner recommends such
          > > communication, doesn't
          > > he?...countless people throughout history have done
          > > just that,
          > > haven't they?...what's not to recommend such
          > > communication?...we can
          > > all read books but sooner or later it gets down to
          > > practical
          > > affairs...for your questions She either has the
          > > "juice" or she
          > > doesn't, eh?
          >
          > You know Gaelman, its such a simplistic response and I
          > have to say I have learned to kick out, for the most
          > part, these simplistic thoughts as the Steiner
          > students just don't accept them from someone like me
          > who is not as intelligent as them. If I don't get the
          > whole round of first epoch, post epoch, angelic who's
          > who and so forth I don't really count, especially if I
          > write the way I do which kinda looks like mush to them
          > for the most part.
          >
          > But, I was thinking this very thought myself this
          > morning or maybe this afternoon. Why is it that
          > somehow within me I need to have them understand what
          > I am trying to bring. Why can't I just know it myself
          > and keep on working it and just be on my merry merry
          > way. I have changed so much from who I was that I am
          > unrecognizable to myself in a way. And a lot of that
          > has to do with my work with Dr. Steiner and then alot
          > of that has to do with my interactions with his
          > students.
          >
          > So, this last week I am really clear that an angel is
          > near. I mean it is almost like hand behind my hand in
          > a way. And, I am almost wanting to say that I was
          > within the Christ realm last night, but I can not be
          > sure. I was being awoken over and over to be shown a
          > thing from the spiritual to the physical so that my
          > mind would grasp what was being shared spiritually
          > with the physical part of my life or our lives. I am
          > almost wanting to say that somehow the Christ and the
          > Sophia were attending me. Strange ey? Probably even
          > stranger to the Dr.'s students for me to say such a
          > thing. Well, except of course the ones that know I
          > tend to put these kinds of things online.
          >
          > What I am getting at is what you bring 'why not just
          > ask Her or Him? And the reason is that I have this
          > insane need to find it like other people. If I find it
          > like other people do, than I can show them the pathway
          > to finding it right before their very own eyes. If I
          > ask Them then I haven't found it in that manner. I
          > mean for some reason I have this judgement that I have
          > to do it myself. I don't like to ask for me. The one
          > time I did, Miss Magdalene herself showed up in my
          > room and I didn't know what to do with myself.
          >
          > Another point is that to invite them into ones sphere
          > is to be in what I am going to call the 'tear' sphere,
          > the ultimate sadness and the ultimate joy. I tend to
          > think I am not up for the ultimate sadness in order to
          > get to the ultimate joy. I've been there and it aint
          > easy brother. That song 'he aint heavey he's my
          > brother comes to mind with the 'need somebody to lean
          > on, And really, Gaelman, who can you lean on if your
          > own people are naysayers to what you are trying to
          > share?
          >
          > Dr. Steiner advocates interacting with the spirit
          > world but his students decide who is really
          > interacting and who is not. And that is the game I
          > seem to have caught myself up in. I didn't realize it
          > until really today at some point. I mean every once in
          > awhile something would hit me funny but it really just
          > hit me today.
          >
          > So, long story short, very long story short, I shall
          > say that I am preparing to get ready to dig in and
          > welcome that which is wanting to come, tears and all.
          > And boy is that a bugger for me. This morning I was
          > reading about the Nathan soul being the sister soul to
          > Adam, so spoken of by Dr. Steiner. And it ocurred to
          > me that I had been there before, at this point in the
          > story that is. And this sister soul had to vacate the
          > body to allow the Christ to inhabit the body. Now, did
          > this sister soul, sorry fellows, did this sister soul
          > leave when the Zarathusthra soul came in or is it that
          > this sister soul stayed with the Zarathusthra and then
          > departed with the Zarathusthra into the 'stepmother'
          > at the Jordan. Either way, once again, we have a
          > mention of a sister soul of Adam.
          >
          > It can't be man on man. It can't. No matter of heaven
          > or hell can see it that way. There needs to be a ying
          > and there needs to be a yang. This story of John and
          > Lazarus is missing a very key ingredient and it has to
          > do with She.
          >
          > But, I shall ask Gaelman. Thank you for the
          > encouragement. And maybe you shall be there to help
          > hold my hand as the tears begin to drown me before my
          > spirit self takes over to show me the joy.
          >
          > Gaelman:
          > > With respect to Sophia/Mary/Eve...She who
          > > experienced the
          > > Annunciation...I remember reading a long time ago
          > > that Lucifer had
          > > appropriated Her mojo...to my way of thinking that
          > > resulted in the
          > > human mother of Jesus...an incarnated human
          > > being...being turned
          > > into a bloodless angel...you know, "holy, holy,
          > > holy"; "pure, pure,
          > > pure", "boring, boring, boring"...have you a take on
          > > that, Dottie?
          >
          > Well, in a way he has as he helped to 'kill' her
          > realness through our falling further and further into
          > the material world through all the tempations around
          > us. I believe you are Catholic as I and I have to say
          > although they are the only ones who speak on a Mother
          > Mary they are also the only ones who have made her
          > into a building and a thing and the spirit self is
          > lost to her people. They have built up a mirage around
          > the 'feelings' of her and not the 'real' her. When
          > people come to understand the 'real' Virgin Mary was a
          > Cosmic Being, and the earthly one was considered the
          > 'whore' then they will begin to have a feel for what
          > spiritual science is trying to bring. Until then we
          > are all in for a long haul that will probably include
          > one more time a killing of the witches. I say that not
          > lightly either.
          >
          > Dr. Steiner speaks very ...well I can't hold it.
          >
          > Thanks Gaelman,
          >
          > Dottie

          Dottie: I happen to be reading Steiner's lecture, "The Mission of
          Reverence", 28 Oct 1909 in the book, "Love and its Meaning in the
          World"...it's funny how what we happen to be reading seems to be
          exactly germane to what some of these discussions concern,eh?

          I was struck by your mention of the "visitation" by Miss Magdalene.
          With experiences like that it seems to me that one should get
          immediately "practical" and grounded.

          An anecdote: Once, out in Sligo in the west of Ireland I was in the
          company of a very intelligent, decent Irishman...the discussion
          concerned the different instances of the "Appearance of the Virgin
          Mary". He laughed softly and mentioned that his favorite was Her
          Appearance at Knock in county Mayo.. I asked why. He smiled
          amiably and said, "Because She didn't say anything."

          Gaelman


          >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________
          > Do you Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
          > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
        • dottie zold
          ... Magdalene. ... You know what s interesting Gaelman? People thinking what it should mean or should happen once a person experiences somethings as I have. I
          Message 4 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Gaelman:
            > I was struck by your mention of the "visitation" by Miss
            Magdalene.
            > With experiences like that it seems to me that one should get
            > immediately "practical" and grounded.

            You know what's interesting Gaelman? People thinking what it should
            mean or should happen once a person experiences somethings as I have.
            I have seen the Christ in my room, and once in a box guiding me home,
            I have seen his form in the clouds as well as that of Michael and
            know they were for me to specifically see. But the only one who
            appeared as a physical moving exsistance as in a bodily force was the
            Magdalene.

            Now, I never gave it any thought as to what that means or even that
            there was a difference in my experience of these Beings. But with
            your question it ocurrs to me that it was the Magdalene that I was
            clearly able to experience as a seeing and a real physical existance.
            The others were for me to 'believe' in the possibilities, or even
            maybe a 'shoring up' a bit for what is in store for me. Like a little
            bit at a time so as not to overwhelm me.

            But the Magdalene came straight at me in physical movement and from
            above me. Almost as if one could close ones eyes and feel or even see
            a sparkly energetic thingy moving at you. And you would open your
            eyes and truly what you thought was coming at you unseen was actually
            truly coming at you. And she came with a thinking possibility, like a
            real possibility to interact with one on one. Like, right there in
            your face. I never wondered what she thought about me 'batting' her
            away. I did a few weeks back think on this but never before. I
            actually try not to imagine if she understood that I thought she was
            saying she was truly me in the sense that I was that incarnation. I
            didn't understand that she was showing me to myself as she will show
            others to themselves. Now I understand.

            But I want to say there is a very grave misundertanding as to who can
            see her and also the Christ and what that must mean for their moral
            lives and such. It is not as others say. It really is a weeping
            heart that calls them forth. My heart weeps in a sense for wanting to
            serve. It always has and I imagine it always will. I am not perfect
            as can be seen by this list however I do have such a perfect heart. I
            do so love everyone. And I do so stand at the service of the Queen.
            And I think that my deep desire, which must come from the beginning
            of time, is what calls them to me. It's not that I have acheived
            Consciousness Soul or Spirit Self, or have attained the three
            whatever it was that Terence spoke on, it is none of that. It is my
            pure desire to serve and to grow to learn how to better serve.

            So, I may not seem practical but I am very. I may not seem
            intellectual but I am very. I may not seem balanced but I am very.
            And the reason is because the grace that has been bestowed upon me to
            experience the Christ and the Magdalene and the Sophia and the
            Michael have pulled me to the center of my core. And I still make
            great mistakes. But I do try so very very hard. And that is what I
            think it takes: a trying, weeping, swashbuckling, sailor swearing
            heart that is very meek within.

            Doesn't your heart weep Gaelman? I sense that it does.

            And I will tell you a secret: I don't tell these things to make
            myself look good: if anything it makes me look unbalanced, boastful,
            and I catch a lot of slack for just suggesting it. But I do it for
            Them. They want people to know that They are about. And I am fine
            with that.

            All good things,
            Dottie
          • Steve Hale
            ... Christ entered as Ego at 29 years. The soul of Jesus receives this influence for three and a half years as irradiating sun forces. Then the body
            Message 5 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
              <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
              > Stephen:
              > > Jesus retained his soul until the very end.
              >
              > I would like to know where my teacher speaks of this if you know? In
              > all his works I have not found it. If this is your own inspiration I
              > would be interested in knowing from whence it comes. Can you trace it
              > back to whence it arose? If you can not that is fine.
              >
              > Dottie

              Christ entered as Ego at 29 years. The soul of Jesus receives this
              influence for three and a half years as irradiating sun forces. Then
              the body disappears. It arose with Jesus, but where did it go?

              We know that the Buddha stream and the Zarathurstra stream converged in
              the young boy at twelve, and he retained his soul in order to prepare
              it for the greater experiences to come, and to realize the passions
              that would quicken this soul for the redemption.

              My inspirations come from efforts of intensified thinking in
              relationship to studying the works of Rudolf Steiner. I was compelled
              to start writing about it 11 years ago, and my recent posts on the
              evolutionary Christ and His reappearance are based on thinking into the
              matter. Also, I believe if one takes Steiner's gospel renderings in
              their totality, including the Fifth Gospel, that it is clearly
              indicated that Jesus retains his own soul throughout.

              Steve
            • dottie zold
              ... in ... Dr. Steiner states that teh Buddha stream and the Zarathusthra stream converge on the Nathan Jesus at twelve? And if he did, wouldn t it be in two
              Message 6 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Stephen:
                > We know that the Buddha stream and the Zarathurstra stream converged
                in
                > the young boy at twelve, and he retained his soul in order to prepare
                > it for the greater experiences to come, and to realize the passions
                > that would quicken this soul for the redemption.

                Dr. Steiner states that teh Buddha stream and the Zarathusthra stream
                converge on the Nathan Jesus at twelve? And if he did, wouldn't it be
                in two completely different manners as the Zarathusthra soul came to
                live within the Nathan Jesus?

                I have not come to the same understanding as you have regarding this
                sister soul of Adam remaining in the body. But that could be because I
                have not contemplated this nor have been inspired about it. Rather, I
                have been inspired to understand that the soul of this Nathan Jesus
                left the body at the incoming of the Christ or just before. It seems to
                me that Dr. Steiner relates the body as being specifically on its own
                and living off the Zarathusthra forces. I mean he specifically states
                this but he never does state what happens to this Nathan soul.

                If you are correct in your inspirations than it would seem to me that
                the spirit of the Nathan soul is the spirit that is seen fleeing the
                scene at the Judas kiss. And then that could also possibly explain how
                it is that the being Anthroposophia is an invisible human being that
                walks amongst men. But that seems a bit to easy for me in a way. I am
                tending to contemplate that when Dr. STeiner speaks of the MarySophia
                being coming from the cosmos hence making the 'stepmother' a virgin,
                what we really are led to is the idea that the SophiaMary or what I am
                calling the sister soul of Adam leaves Jesus and enters into the step
                mother. Dr. STeiner is not explicit although he does say she comes from
                the spiritual worlds and not specifically from the Nathan Jesus.

                Are you open to the idea that you may be incorrect or are you sure of
                this understanding as to the soul remaining in the Nathan Jesus? I
                would like to present something from the Fifth Gospel, for you or for
                others who want to look at this, that speaks to the body being by
                itself. Maybe from there you can share how it is that it has come to
                your inspirations that this sister soul of Adam remains within the
                body. I have to say it does not feel correct to me but I am open minded
                to the possibility. It is a big point to consider and I think that is
                more important in fact than what happened to the body, and even more
                important that we get it right.

                Best,
                Dottie
              • Steve Hale
                ... converged ... prepare ... passions ... stream ... be ... to ... this ... because I ... Rather, I ... Jesus ... seems to ... own ... states ... that ... the
                Message 7 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
                  <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                  > Stephen:
                  > > We know that the Buddha stream and the Zarathurstra stream
                  converged
                  > in
                  > > the young boy at twelve, and he retained his soul in order to
                  prepare
                  > > it for the greater experiences to come, and to realize the
                  passions
                  > > that would quicken this soul for the redemption.
                  >
                  > Dr. Steiner states that teh Buddha stream and the Zarathusthra
                  stream
                  > converge on the Nathan Jesus at twelve? And if he did, wouldn't it
                  be
                  > in two completely different manners as the Zarathusthra soul came
                  to
                  > live within the Nathan Jesus?
                  >
                  > I have not come to the same understanding as you have regarding
                  this
                  > sister soul of Adam remaining in the body. But that could be
                  because I
                  > have not contemplated this nor have been inspired about it.
                  Rather, I
                  > have been inspired to understand that the soul of this Nathan
                  Jesus
                  > left the body at the incoming of the Christ or just before. It
                  seems to
                  > me that Dr. Steiner relates the body as being specifically on its
                  own
                  > and living off the Zarathusthra forces. I mean he specifically
                  states
                  > this but he never does state what happens to this Nathan soul.
                  >
                  > If you are correct in your inspirations than it would seem to me
                  that
                  > the spirit of the Nathan soul is the spirit that is seen fleeing
                  the
                  > scene at the Judas kiss. And then that could also possibly explain
                  how
                  > it is that the being Anthroposophia is an invisible human being
                  that
                  > walks amongst men. But that seems a bit to easy for me in a way. I
                  am
                  > tending to contemplate that when Dr. STeiner speaks of the
                  MarySophia
                  > being coming from the cosmos hence making the 'stepmother' a
                  virgin,
                  > what we really are led to is the idea that the SophiaMary or what
                  I am
                  > calling the sister soul of Adam leaves Jesus and enters into the
                  step
                  > mother. Dr. STeiner is not explicit although he does say she comes
                  from
                  > the spiritual worlds and not specifically from the Nathan Jesus.
                  >
                  > Are you open to the idea that you may be incorrect or are you sure
                  of
                  > this understanding as to the soul remaining in the Nathan Jesus? I
                  > would like to present something from the Fifth Gospel, for you or
                  for
                  > others who want to look at this, that speaks to the body being by
                  > itself. Maybe from there you can share how it is that it has come
                  to
                  > your inspirations that this sister soul of Adam remains within the
                  > body. I have to say it does not feel correct to me but I am open
                  minded
                  > to the possibility. It is a big point to consider and I think that
                  is
                  > more important in fact than what happened to the body, and even
                  more
                  > important that we get it right.
                  >
                  > Best,
                  > Dottie

                  Well, for an astral body and an etheric body to be at the head and
                  foot of the empty grave, as perceived by Mary Magdalene, the soul is
                  proven to have existed in the Nathan Jesus, correct? And when she
                  sees the gardener who wakes her up, who's he?

                  Steve
                • dottie zold
                  Friends I just have to share this little piece from Dennis Klocek s book Knowledge, Teaching and teh Death of thy Mysteries: Adult Education: 2000 You take a
                  Message 8 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Friends I just have to share this little piece from
                    Dennis Klocek's book Knowledge, Teaching and teh Death
                    of thy Mysteries:

                    Adult Education: 2000

                    "You take a picture from teh natural world, you hold
                    it and try to unfold it sequence to sequence. A
                    picture will form in you as a process of becoming.
                    When you do that, you have directly entered your
                    etheric body, that is imagination. In the beginning it
                    is an imagination with a little i. If it is taken as a
                    practice - a regular, rhythmical practice - and again
                    and again you form a leaf and try to see how the leaf
                    would grow, growing it in your inner eye, that is
                    meditation. It is an etheric meditation on the formal
                    principle behind the leaf.

                    If it is incorrect, and you keep persisting in the
                    rhythm, it will be corrected. It will be corrected by
                    the beings who stand behind those ether forces in the
                    natural world. They will come to you because suddenly
                    here is a human being who is showing an extraordinary
                    interest in their activity. Just think how you would
                    feel if you ahd been laboring your whole life to do
                    something in obscurity, and suddenly some being poked
                    his head through into the space where you were working
                    and said, "Wow! That is really cool, what you are
                    doing!" What would you do? You would turn to him and
                    say, 'Hey! Where have you been all my life?" That is
                    just what the beings who are serving the Christ Being
                    and teh Hierarchies in nature will do when you start
                    to pay attention to them in the way they need to be
                    paid attention to, which is in a lawful way.

                    Goethe called this practice 'exact sense perception'.
                    It is a great tool for the Waldorf teachers. Take
                    anything that you are struggling with in a block, in a
                    science block especially, and just try to picture it.
                    But don't picture it as a dead thing; picture it with
                    a sensitivity towards how it looked just before it got
                    to where it is now. Then take that a step back, and
                    then a step back. If you can get two or three steps
                    back, you are in your ether body. That is right from
                    Rudolf Steiner'. You are in your ether body if you can
                    begin to see this process inwardly in an exact way. It
                    has to be exact - and there is a danger. The danger is
                    that when you do that, and you start to actually see
                    pictures, you will think: one, that you made them; and
                    two, that they are correct. So we have to make that
                    more rigorous.

                    What we do is to go from the ether body into the
                    astral body, because the astral body is where the
                    action is. Taht is where the adversaries are building
                    little fast food places where they hang out, waiting
                    for lunch. WE need to find a way in there, and teh way
                    we find in, which osunds paradoxical, is that 'after'
                    we form the exact picture we have to think it away
                    into complete and utter silence. When we think it away
                    into complete utter silence, we have entered directly
                    into our astral body, according to Rudolf Steiner.
                    When we participate in the astral body, the danger is
                    that in the astral body we hvae the experiencces that
                    we have no form, because the form comes from the
                    etheric pole."

                    Dottie:

                    This man is so amazing. Really. It's like reading
                    Rudolf Steiner it is so simplistic yet so very deep
                    and oh so very very funny. Dr. Steiner makes me laugh,
                    he always has, and now so does Mr. Klocek. He has a
                    great thought on how we 'turn the will' and a great
                    ongoing conversation with the hiearchies asking 'why
                    are they following those retarded beings with
                    everything we give them?:))))) Oh God it is so
                    wonderful to read a modern day man after the likes of
                    Dr. Steiner. Truly it is.

                    I think this is a great book for people who want to
                    know what Dr. Steiner' teachings are about. I mean Mr.
                    Klocek expresses Dr. Steiner's thoughts in such
                    simplistic terms that I can hear Dr. Steiner saying
                    'hey, why didn't I think to say it like that, thanks
                    Dennis' :)) Really it is that good and simplified.
                    Maybe I will share a part of his thoughts on the
                    'turning of the will' tomorrow. It's pretty stunning
                    and again simplistic.

                    All good things,
                    Dottie



                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • dottie zold
                    ... is ... Pardon my thickness Stephen, I do not understand what you are saying here. Would you please rephrase it? As I understand the those standing at the
                    Message 9 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Stephen:
                      > Well, for an astral body and an etheric body to be at the head and
                      > foot of the empty grave, as perceived by Mary Magdalene, the soul
                      is
                      > proven to have existed in the Nathan Jesus, correct? And when she
                      > sees the gardener who wakes her up, who's he?

                      Pardon my thickness Stephen, I do not understand what you are saying
                      here. Would you please rephrase it?

                      As I understand the those standing at the foot are the
                      representations of the Heavenly and Earthly Sophia tending the body.
                      I never considered it to be the astral and etheric of Christ. Is that
                      what you are getting at? Which would seem to possibly be one part of
                      the sevenfold mystery of this picture. And, again, we would have to
                      remember that it is not only at the death but also before the death
                      that we have these pictures of the Magdalene at the feet and also
                      annointing the head. But maybe I misunderstand you.

                      As for 'who woke her up', Christ is to have said she was already one
                      who could see the Light, and I take that as the Sophia. What 'woke'
                      her up is actually the Word. She was the first to hear the 'Word'
                      transformed, and that men could now hear it again as in the time of
                      old. Well, truth be told I am flying on a wing and a prayer with that
                      last comment. But it is a good question as to who or what woke her
                      up. I'd say it was the transformed Word.

                      All good things,

                      Dottie
                    • dottie zold
                      ... Another thing occurs to me and that is that the Shekinah is at the physical existance of the Godhead or maybe a way to say it is the representation of God
                      Message 10 of 18 , Aug 3, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > As I understand the those standing at the foot are the
                        > representations of the Heavenly and Earthly Sophia tending the body.
                        > I never considered it to be the astral and etheric of Christ. Is that
                        > what you are getting at? Which would seem to possibly be one part of
                        > the sevenfold mystery of this picture. And, again, we would have to
                        > remember that it is not only at the death but also before the death
                        > that we have these pictures of the Magdalene at the feet and also
                        > annointing the head. But maybe I misunderstand you.

                        Another thing occurs to me and that is that the Shekinah is at the
                        physical existance of the Godhead or maybe a way to say it is the
                        representation of God manifested. In that She sits at the bottom, it is
                        also through Her that the top is infused: it comes from the Earthly
                        level to the Heavenly level as we are rising. So, it could be that the
                        Magdalene is the very representation of this Shekinah and then again at
                        the top of the head as well. At the top She becomes the 'virgin', so
                        infused by the bottom. As we are in the earthly realm it might be
                        correct to also look at it from that level. When we consider further
                        that we have the Magdalene annointing not only the feet but also the
                        head I do believe this gives an indication of her earthly capacity of
                        representing the fishes (feet) to the scales (virgin). At least this
                        seems to be where I have been heading for quite a few years. I guess
                        the language is now getting a bit clearer for me.

                        Thanks Stephen, for the conversation which leads to further study for
                        me.
                        Dottie
                      • Steve Hale
                        ... and ... soul ... she ... saying ... body. ... that ... of ... to ... death ... one ... What woke ... of ... that ... Steiner gave an excellent single
                        Message 11 of 18 , Aug 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
                          <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                          > Stephen:
                          > > Well, for an astral body and an etheric body to be at the head
                          and
                          > > foot of the empty grave, as perceived by Mary Magdalene, the
                          soul
                          > is
                          > > proven to have existed in the Nathan Jesus, correct? And when
                          she
                          > > sees the gardener who wakes her up, who's he?
                          >
                          > Pardon my thickness Stephen, I do not understand what you are
                          saying
                          > here. Would you please rephrase it?
                          >
                          > As I understand the those standing at the foot are the
                          > representations of the Heavenly and Earthly Sophia tending the
                          body.
                          > I never considered it to be the astral and etheric of Christ. Is
                          that
                          > what you are getting at? Which would seem to possibly be one part
                          of
                          > the sevenfold mystery of this picture. And, again, we would have
                          to
                          > remember that it is not only at the death but also before the
                          death
                          > that we have these pictures of the Magdalene at the feet and also
                          > annointing the head. But maybe I misunderstand you.
                          >
                          > As for 'who woke her up', Christ is to have said she was already
                          one
                          > who could see the Light, and I take that as the Sophia.
                          What 'woke'
                          > her up is actually the Word. She was the first to hear the 'Word'
                          > transformed, and that men could now hear it again as in the time
                          of
                          > old. Well, truth be told I am flying on a wing and a prayer with
                          that
                          > last comment. But it is a good question as to who or what woke her
                          > up. I'd say it was the transformed Word.
                          >
                          > All good things,
                          >
                          > Dottie

                          Steiner gave an excellent single lecture entitled: Jesus and Christ,
                          on Oct. 4, 1911, just before the major lecture course, "From Jesus
                          To Christ", at Karslruhe from Oct. 5-14, 1911. And in this single
                          lecture he expresses the important fact that when the Buddha and
                          Zarathustra Streams converge in Jesus at the age of twelve, that the
                          two mystery streams of the ancients also converged therein. One was
                          an etheric path wherein the neophyte was taken into his inner self
                          in order to find the God man, and the other took the student out of
                          his body for an astral communion with the macrocosm, and the
                          experience of "that thou art". Thus, the one path was the path of
                          the microcosm and the other the path of the macrocosm. Both led to
                          the experience of Universal Human. And the disciple took on his
                          white garment; his nainsook to use a fine biblical term for it. And
                          as a result of his initiation, he knew he bore an immortal soul, as
                          his past lives were now there within this fine white garment that he
                          now consciously possessed. And he became a warrior of the fourth
                          stage of initiation.

                          When Mary Magdalene sees two Angels at the foot and head of the
                          empty tomb, she asks: "Where have they taken him"? And then, in
                          seeing the gardener while weeping, a voice coming from the gardener
                          says: "Mary!" And only then does she know Who the gardener is; The
                          Risen Christ. Now, this is all covered quite well in Steiner's
                          lectures on the Gospel of St. John, and the explanation of who the
                          two Angels are, i.e., the etheric and astral bodies of Jesus having
                          vacated the physical corpse. The Gospel of Mark lectures even say
                          that the two Mary's see the young man from the night before, wearing
                          the fine linen garment that had fallen to the ground when Jesus was
                          taken into custody, but herein no reference is made to a gardener.
                          And only the Luke gospel refers to the young man of Nain, which
                          Steiner describes in his lecture cycle on the Gospel of Luke as
                          being the Linga Sharira of the Matthew Jesus. And the Gospel of
                          Matthew lectures make a profound imapct in emphasizing the two great
                          streams flowing down out of the Godhead; the stream of 77
                          generations to Joseph, and the stream of 42 generations to Joseph.
                          And how the Hebrews are the chosen ones to prepare the physical
                          hereditary bloodline for the incarnation of Zarathustra Himself into
                          the boy born in a house in Bethlehem.

                          Now, these two streams were originally vested in the first two
                          students of Zarathustra; the one student being of contemporaneous
                          space, and the other student being the student of uncreated time.
                          Then, uncreated time got broken into creation, and the 42
                          generations of Abraham commenced the specific downward tendency to
                          the Matthew Jesus, while the spatial stream remained unabated. So,
                          of necessity, the time stream and the space streams had to flow
                          together for the future evolution of mankind. The Fifth Gospel is
                          the supersensible gospel, known to the Hebrew priests even before
                          the Gospel of Matthew was written, and restored two thousand years
                          later by Rudolf Steiner. It fills in what the others can't discern,
                          and gives us a fuller christology than has ever been known.

                          Steve
                        • gaelman58
                          ... should ... have. ... home, ... the ... Had an experience years ago...encountered a beautiful woman who, after I did a specific thing, directed my attention
                          Message 12 of 18 , Aug 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
                            <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                            > Gaelman:
                            > > I was struck by your mention of the "visitation" by Miss
                            > Magdalene.
                            > > With experiences like that it seems to me that one should get
                            > > immediately "practical" and grounded.
                            >
                            > You know what's interesting Gaelman? People thinking what it
                            should
                            > mean or should happen once a person experiences somethings as I
                            have.
                            > I have seen the Christ in my room, and once in a box guiding me
                            home,
                            > I have seen his form in the clouds as well as that of Michael and
                            > know they were for me to specifically see. But the only one who
                            > appeared as a physical moving exsistance as in a bodily force was
                            the
                            > Magdalene.

                            Had an experience years ago...encountered a beautiful woman who,
                            after I did a specific thing, directed my attention to a symbol
                            representing a principle...that experience is clear in my memory
                            whenever I summon it...almost photographic...but I really don't know
                            who the woman was or why she reminded me of the "principle"...I
                            don't know what simply arose out of me or what might have been
                            objective reality...so I'm not concluding anything...but I can
                            describe her countenance and color and "fashion" of her "garb".
                            >
                            > Now, I never gave it any thought as to what that means or even
                            that
                            > there was a difference in my experience of these Beings. But with
                            > your question it ocurrs to me that it was the Magdalene that I was
                            > clearly able to experience as a seeing and a real physical
                            existance.
                            > The others were for me to 'believe' in the possibilities, or even
                            > maybe a 'shoring up' a bit for what is in store for me. Like a
                            little
                            > bit at a time so as not to overwhelm me.
                            >
                            > But the Magdalene came straight at me in physical movement and
                            from
                            > above me. Almost as if one could close ones eyes and feel or even
                            see
                            > a sparkly energetic thingy moving at you. And you would open your
                            > eyes and truly what you thought was coming at you unseen was
                            actually
                            > truly coming at you. And she came with a thinking possibility,
                            like a
                            > real possibility to interact with one on one. Like, right there in
                            > your face. I never wondered what she thought about me 'batting'
                            her
                            > away. I did a few weeks back think on this but never before. I
                            > actually try not to imagine if she understood that I thought she
                            was
                            > saying she was truly me in the sense that I was that incarnation.
                            I
                            > didn't understand that she was showing me to myself as she will
                            show
                            > others to themselves. Now I understand.

                            Not for me to muck about with other folk's experiences...but with
                            regard to the Magdalene I don't think I be forgetting that she's a
                            human being...and would observe the amenities...that is, she
                            wouldn't come unless summoned...whereas those other deceiving
                            buggers would show up as they determined and would probably put on a
                            hell of a light show for purposes of impression...and she'd probably
                            have something to say to another human being which would be exactly
                            germane to the business at hand.
                            >
                            > But I want to say there is a very grave misundertanding as to who
                            can
                            > see her and also the Christ and what that must mean for their
                            moral
                            > lives and such. It is not as others say. It really is a weeping
                            > heart that calls them forth. My heart weeps in a sense for wanting
                            to
                            > serve. It always has and I imagine it always will. I am not
                            perfect
                            > as can be seen by this list however I do have such a perfect
                            heart. I
                            > do so love everyone. And I do so stand at the service of the
                            Queen.
                            > And I think that my deep desire, which must come from the
                            beginning
                            > of time, is what calls them to me

                            What you say here is essentially what Steiner says in the
                            Lecture, "The Mission of Reverence", 28 Oct 1909...."The
                            Consciousness Soul will never gain a knowledge of external objects
                            unless love and devotion inspire its quest; otherwise the objects
                            will not be truly observed."




                            It's not that I have acheived
                            > Consciousness Soul or Spirit Self, or have attained the three
                            > whatever it was that Terence spoke on, it is none of that. It is
                            my
                            > pure desire to serve and to grow to learn how to better serve.
                            >
                            > So, I may not seem practical but I am very. I may not seem
                            > intellectual but I am very. I may not seem balanced but I am very.
                            > And the reason is because the grace that has been bestowed upon me
                            to
                            > experience the Christ and the Magdalene and the Sophia and the
                            > Michael have pulled me to the center of my core. And I still make
                            > great mistakes. But I do try so very very hard. And that is what I
                            > think it takes: a trying, weeping, swashbuckling, sailor swearing
                            > heart that is very meek within.
                            >
                            > Doesn't your heart weep Gaelman? I sense that it does.

                            But Dottie, Oi'm an Oirishman...what would ye expect?...Katy Feeny
                            sings a song, "The Most of All", Mother Mary singing to her infant
                            son knowing full well what's in store for Him...I can't listen to it
                            without weeping.


                            >
                            > And I will tell you a secret: I don't tell these things to make
                            > myself look good: if anything it makes me look unbalanced,
                            boastful,
                            > and I catch a lot of slack for just suggesting it. But I do it for
                            > Them. They want people to know that They are about. And I am fine
                            > with that.

                            Ride light in the saddle and laugh at solemnity,eh?...regards,
                            Gaelman
                            >
                            > All good things,
                            > Dottie
                          • adm_anthroposophia
                            Queen of Red. King of White. Unite! Turn the Universe into Pink. Xandor ... have. ... home, ... the ... existance. ... little ... see ... actually ... a ...
                            Message 13 of 18 , Aug 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Queen of Red. King of White. Unite! Turn the Universe into Pink.

                              Xandor




                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
                              <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                              > Gaelman:
                              > > I was struck by your mention of the "visitation" by Miss
                              > Magdalene.
                              > > With experiences like that it seems to me that one should get
                              > > immediately "practical" and grounded.
                              >
                              > You know what's interesting Gaelman? People thinking what it should
                              > mean or should happen once a person experiences somethings as I
                              have.
                              > I have seen the Christ in my room, and once in a box guiding me
                              home,
                              > I have seen his form in the clouds as well as that of Michael and
                              > know they were for me to specifically see. But the only one who
                              > appeared as a physical moving exsistance as in a bodily force was
                              the
                              > Magdalene.
                              >
                              > Now, I never gave it any thought as to what that means or even that
                              > there was a difference in my experience of these Beings. But with
                              > your question it ocurrs to me that it was the Magdalene that I was
                              > clearly able to experience as a seeing and a real physical
                              existance.
                              > The others were for me to 'believe' in the possibilities, or even
                              > maybe a 'shoring up' a bit for what is in store for me. Like a
                              little
                              > bit at a time so as not to overwhelm me.
                              >
                              > But the Magdalene came straight at me in physical movement and from
                              > above me. Almost as if one could close ones eyes and feel or even
                              see
                              > a sparkly energetic thingy moving at you. And you would open your
                              > eyes and truly what you thought was coming at you unseen was
                              actually
                              > truly coming at you. And she came with a thinking possibility, like
                              a
                              > real possibility to interact with one on one. Like, right there in
                              > your face. I never wondered what she thought about me 'batting' her
                              > away. I did a few weeks back think on this but never before. I
                              > actually try not to imagine if she understood that I thought she
                              was
                              > saying she was truly me in the sense that I was that incarnation. I
                              > didn't understand that she was showing me to myself as she will
                              show
                              > others to themselves. Now I understand.
                              >
                              > But I want to say there is a very grave misundertanding as to who
                              can
                              > see her and also the Christ and what that must mean for their moral
                              > lives and such. It is not as others say. It really is a weeping
                              > heart that calls them forth. My heart weeps in a sense for wanting
                              to
                              > serve. It always has and I imagine it always will. I am not perfect
                              > as can be seen by this list however I do have such a perfect heart.
                              I
                              > do so love everyone. And I do so stand at the service of the Queen.
                              > And I think that my deep desire, which must come from the beginning
                              > of time, is what calls them to me. It's not that I have acheived
                              > Consciousness Soul or Spirit Self, or have attained the three
                              > whatever it was that Terence spoke on, it is none of that. It is my
                              > pure desire to serve and to grow to learn how to better serve.
                              >
                              > So, I may not seem practical but I am very. I may not seem
                              > intellectual but I am very. I may not seem balanced but I am very.
                              > And the reason is because the grace that has been bestowed upon me
                              to
                              > experience the Christ and the Magdalene and the Sophia and the
                              > Michael have pulled me to the center of my core. And I still make
                              > great mistakes. But I do try so very very hard. And that is what I
                              > think it takes: a trying, weeping, swashbuckling, sailor swearing
                              > heart that is very meek within.
                              >
                              > Doesn't your heart weep Gaelman? I sense that it does.
                              >
                              > And I will tell you a secret: I don't tell these things to make
                              > myself look good: if anything it makes me look unbalanced,
                              boastful,
                              > and I catch a lot of slack for just suggesting it. But I do it for
                              > Them. They want people to know that They are about. And I am fine
                              > with that.
                              >
                              > All good things,
                              > Dottie
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.