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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Response to Dottie

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Nov 7, 2003
      > 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?

      > 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!


      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.

      > 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.


      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.

      > 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.


      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.

      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!


      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.

      > 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.

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


      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?

      > 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.


      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.

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


      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

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


      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?

      > 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
      > Christ = CREATION Holy Spirit = TRANSFORMATION.


      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.

      > 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.


      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.

      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.


      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.

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


      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.

      > 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.


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

      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,


      Do you Yahoo!?
      Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
    • Tarjei Straume
      ... Whatever you do, Christine, don t go anywhere. Please stick around. You sound anarchosophical. Tarjei http://uncletaz.com/
      Message 2 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.

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