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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Henry T. Laurency

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      So, what I am finding right off the bat, with just a
      real quickl look through in the first 10 is that this
      gentlemen is just talking and putting onto Rudolf
      Steiner what the thinks his process is. And just from
      this preliminary look through, one who has studied
      Rudolf Steiner can see that this gentlment doesn't
      know his subject very well nor does he seem to have
      an appreciation for how the seeker seeks or the
      brilliance of the man. He says that Rudolf Steinre is
      brilliant and so forth but then he gives him
      dillitanish habits that would speak to the opposite.

      I don't think I would say that the man would be off
      his rocker in any case just that he shows no real
      understanding of the deeper processes of thinking.
      There is a slight pettyness to the way there is an
      aknowledgement of Rudolf Steiner's thinking and then
      the tearing down of it. And to me the word 'mystic'
      does not really apply to Rudolf Steiner. In affect
      this gentlmen's work seems a bit shallow.

      My early thoughts,
      Dottie

      I shall add on a few as I have had a chance to read a
      little further but I will say I think whoever this
      gentlemen is he has really little objective knowledge
      and a whole lot of subjective opinions. And although
      he says he is not a theosophist I find that very hard
      to believe with the outright vehemenous he attacks
      Rudolf Steiner. He has quite a few untruths in there
      regarding Rudolf Steinre's words on Mdm. Blavatski.
      Rudolf Steiner actually held her work in high esteem
      and often said so. He also stated that due to her
      highly interesting personality and the innability to
      completely keep it in control she was wont to get
      herself mixed up with some of the knowledge.

      I find it hard to continue reading as it is so mixed
      up with innuendos and half truths that it bothers me
      to read it. It's kinda like you eat something really
      sour and your face feels to pucker:) yeah, that's what
      it feels like. I have to read it with one eye open it
      is that off.

      I think the thinker who would read such a work though
      would consider how this man relates his story. Its
      almost in a gossipy nature that really doesn't befit
      an intellectual or a esoterist as he claims to be. It
      doesn't pass the smell test even in the first 20 or so
      points he makes.

      So, my thoughts are if you take that in hand and
      consider the way it is being shared and if you can
      track to see if what he says is true than you can find
      the truth of the matter yourself. Its a matter of
      doing the homework and following the references, to
      see if they are truth or onesided. It can be a lot of
      work but if you want to know if it is true or not than
      it is a good place to start. His work almost reminds
      me of the little lady I met up in Big Bear at the I AM
      Shop. She looked exactly like a Mdme. Blavatski and I
      asked her if she knew of Rudolf STeiner's work. She
      frowned and said 'oh yeah, he is a black magician'.
      And I made a comment like 'oh, hmmm, I guess I don't
      see it that way' or something like that. Rudolf
      Steiner's leaving the Theosophy group had nothing to
      do with Mdme Blatvaski and everything to do with
      Bessant.

      My thoughts,
      Dottie





      __________________________________________
      Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
      Just $16.99/mo. or less.
      dsl.yahoo.com
    • seeekerofthetruuuuth
      ... Hi Dottie, amd thank you for your interest, just as it was in the summer when I dropped by over here. I am very perplexed about this, and there s no way my
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
        <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Hey Friend,
        >
        > I will get a chance to check out what you have offered
        > up for thought later on in the day.

        Hi Dottie,

        amd thank you for your interest, just as it was in the summer when I
        dropped by over here. I am very perplexed about this, and there's no
        way my mother would have the interest to take up the time to study it,
        and I don't see my father too often. Only one of my brothers could get
        interested to delve into this.


        > Can you give me
        > some basic background on this Henry T. Laurency. For
        > example what are his studies and so forth and his
        > background if you know?

        Well, he was an anonymous writer so not alot can be said. The only
        thing I know that is made public of him is that he's from Sweden.

        > Are there other works that
        > might shed a little light on where his point of
        > departure is? Also, where is he from?
        >
        > All good things,
        > Dottie

        Everything important can be found from this website:
        http://www.laurency.com/

        Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.
      • dottie zold
        ... Hey Friend, I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he is saying that hey you all got to know that there is more than you can
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Seeker:
          > Everything important can be found from this website:
          > http://www.laurency.com/
          >
          > Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.

          Hey Friend,

          I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he
          is saying that 'hey you all got to know that there is more than you
          can see' and then on the other hand he seems to be saying 'if you say
          you can see it, you are probably wrong', fe, Sweedenborg.

          The difference between he and Rudolf Steiner, just for a little start,
          is that Rudolf Steiner has methods by where one can work to know the
          knowledge and not just speak of it. I found Laurency site to just be
          speaking about it with no thoughts about how one actually comes to
          attain a knowledge. His thoughts that we are always shifting and so
          forth would be correct and the age old 'the more I know the more I
          know not' can readily apply in many cases. There is always so much
          more to know than the original mystery that meets the eye. Its an
          excavation is how I see it.

          So, it seems to me he debunks Rudolf Steiner just because truly the
          author doesn't know if what Rudolf Steiner has to say is truth or not
          and he has already made a decision, or so it appears to me, that
          Rudolf Steiner can't really know a thing anyway because it is always
          changing. From Rudolf Steiner's perspective there are things that are,
          and there are also more things to learn of them. But we can know them
          and not just from the books.

          How's school going? And I think it is great that you are asking
          questions and so forth. To want to know the opposite of what you've
          been told is a good sign:0 or at least so I think. And you being in
          Mathmatics and all are pretty much dealing with absolutes right? So a
          little fighting for further knowledge is highly encouraged from my
          litle space in Hollywood:)

          Happy New Year to you friend,
          Dottie

          p.s. Do you bang pots and pans where you are? :)
        • seeekerofthetruuuuth
          ... OK. ... In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on talking about methods to higher consciousness. ... Laurency just thought that Steiner s way is
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "dottie zold"
            <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Seeker:
            > > Everything important can be found from this website:
            > > http://www.laurency.com/
            > >
            > > Hope there'll be some light shed in all of this.
            >
            > Hey Friend,
            >
            > I checked out his site and I find it interesting that on one hand he
            > is saying that 'hey you all got to know that there is more than you
            > can see' and then on the other hand he seems to be saying 'if you say
            > you can see it, you are probably wrong', fe, Sweedenborg.

            OK.

            > The difference between he and Rudolf Steiner, just for a little start,
            > is that Rudolf Steiner has methods by where one can work to know the
            > knowledge and not just speak of it. I found Laurency site to just be
            > speaking about it with no thoughts about how one actually comes to
            > attain a knowledge. His thoughts that we are always shifting and so
            > forth would be correct and the age old 'the more I know the more I
            > know not' can readily apply in many cases. There is always so much
            > more to know than the original mystery that meets the eye. Its an
            > excavation is how I see it.

            In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on talking about methods to
            higher consciousness.

            > So, it seems to me he debunks Rudolf Steiner just because truly the
            > author doesn't know if what Rudolf Steiner has to say is truth or not
            > and he has already made a decision, or so it appears to me, that
            > Rudolf Steiner can't really know a thing anyway because it is always
            > changing.

            Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is misleading. He did
            certainly not think everything is always changing.

            From Rudolf Steiner's perspective there are things that are,
            > and there are also more things to learn of them. But we can know them
            > and not just from the books.

            With that I would think Henry would agree.

            > How's school going? And I think it is great that you are asking
            > questions and so forth. To want to know the opposite of what you've
            > been told is a good sign:0 or at least so I think. And you being in
            > Mathmatics and all are pretty much dealing with absolutes right? So a
            > little fighting for further knowledge is highly encouraged from my
            > litle space in Hollywood:)
            >
            > Happy New Year to you friend,
            > Dottie
            >
            > p.s. Do you bang pots and pans where you are? :)
            >

            Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do we bang pots and
            pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when I was doing the
            dishes. :)

            Thanks for your sincere interest and have a good New Year,

            Mir
          • seeekerofthetruuuuth
            A writing conserning his way of meditation: http://www.laurency.com/L1e/kl1_1.pdf It s the first cahpter of Knowledge of Life One.
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              A writing conserning his way of meditation:
              http://www.laurency.com/L1e/kl1_1.pdf

              It's the first cahpter of Knowledge of Life One.
            • dottie zold
              ... I ve just read your link. I don t really see him as talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 30, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Seeker:
                > In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on
                > talking about methods to
                > higher consciousness.

                I've just read your link. I don't really see him as
                talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as
                far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels like he
                has some thoughts on it and there okay but I don't see
                a method just talking about a method.

                Seeker:
                > Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is
                > misleading. He did
                > certainly not think everything is always changing.

                My impression of his work is that on one hand he says
                we have to think deeper and on the other hand faults
                Steiner because he came to a definitive view point on
                some of those insights. I get he thinks everything is
                always changing.

                Seeker:
                > Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do
                > we bang pots and
                > pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when
                > I was doing the
                > dishes. :)

                No banging of pots and pans for the new year out on
                the front porch? What the heck do y'all do for fun on
                New Years Eve? Whew.

                I just finished reading the link you offered up on his
                method. I can see that one might get a thing from him
                and I don't have anything really against what he says.
                Some of it feels off and some of it feels on and some
                of it is a little funky. I read it to the end and it
                didn't feel like it led me anywhere.

                And then I tried to read the other one again regarding
                his issues with Rudolf Steiner. There's just too many
                wrong points in there to give this work any
                credibility. Too many wrong points about Theosophy and
                about Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on it and so forth. It
                really feels like a hearsay type of paper. But I am
                thinking that maybe Frank, if he has time, can give
                some finer points as to the difference in the thinking
                and so forth, or maybe Val can. She's really good at
                that. They both would be much better. So, might I
                suggest, in case this hasn't caught their attention to
                put their name in LIGHTS in the subject line:)))

                All good things to you,
                Dottie

                p.s. If you like the idea of thinking about thinking
                and so forth you might like to read Rudolf Steiner's
                Philosophy of Freedom. Its a hard one to get through
                but if my angel loving friends can do it than I
                imagine with your solid mind it might not be so bad.
                Maybe your Mom has it on the bookshelf. Its definitely
                not the easiest of his reads and in fact I find it the
                hardest for my mind but for your mathematics college
                bound mind it should be a good one.





                __________________________________________
                Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
                Just $16.99/mo. or less.
                dsl.yahoo.com
              • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                ... I would think that what Laurency had in mind is that Steiner did come to a definitive point of view in some of the higher sheaths of reality, and b/c of
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 31, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
                  <dottie_z@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Seeker:
                  > > In Knowledge of Life, for example, he goes on
                  > > talking about methods to
                  > > higher consciousness.
                  >
                  > I've just read your link. I don't really see him as
                  > talking methods in the way that Rudolf Steiner does as
                  > far as exercises. I see him talking. It feels like he
                  > has some thoughts on it and there okay but I don't see
                  > a method just talking about a method.
                  >
                  > Seeker:
                  > > Laurency just thought that Steiner's way is
                  > > misleading. He did
                  > > certainly not think everything is always changing.
                  >
                  > My impression of his work is that on one hand he says
                  > we have to think deeper and on the other hand faults
                  > Steiner because he came to a definitive view point on
                  > some of those insights. I get he thinks everything is
                  > always changing.

                  I would think that what Laurency had in mind is that Steiner did come
                  to a definitive point of view in some of the higher sheaths of
                  reality, and b/c of this he does give credit, but where he came to the
                  Akasha Chronicle(, as an example, at least) is something where he
                  could not see objective reality, but a subjective one.

                  > Seeker:
                  > > Thank you, my school's going pretty well. Hmmm, do
                  > > we bang pots and
                  > > pans? Well, I used to do that often as a child when
                  > > I was doing the
                  > > dishes. :)
                  >
                  > No banging of pots and pans for the new year out on
                  > the front porch? What the heck do y'all do for fun on
                  > New Years Eve? Whew.

                  Umm, I don't know how you say it in English; go down a slope with a
                  sled? That's atleast as fun as your pot bangings! :D

                  > I just finished reading the link you offered up on his
                  > method. I can see that one might get a thing from him
                  > and I don't have anything really against what he says.
                  > Some of it feels off and some of it feels on and some
                  > of it is a little funky. I read it to the end and it
                  > didn't feel like it led me anywhere.

                  Thanks for your opinion. I've only read it through without closer
                  orientation.

                  > And then I tried to read the other one again regarding
                  > his issues with Rudolf Steiner. There's just too many
                  > wrong points in there to give this work any
                  > credibility. Too many wrong points about Theosophy and
                  > about Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on it and so forth. It
                  > really feels like a hearsay type of paper. But I am
                  > thinking that maybe Frank, if he has time, can give
                  > some finer points as to the difference in the thinking
                  > and so forth, or maybe Val can. She's really good at
                  > that. They both would be much better. So, might I
                  > suggest, in case this hasn't caught their attention to
                  > put their name in LIGHTS in the subject line:)))

                  Ugh, sorry, I'm a total newbie here, so I don't know what you're
                  talking about wuth the lights. Could yoou light me in this please? :)

                  > All good things to you,
                  > Dottie
                  >
                  > p.s. If you like the idea of thinking about thinking
                  > and so forth you might like to read Rudolf Steiner's
                  > Philosophy of Freedom. Its a hard one to get through
                  > but if my angel loving friends can do it than I
                  > imagine with your solid mind it might not be so bad.
                  > Maybe your Mom has it on the bookshelf. Its definitely
                  > not the easiest of his reads and in fact I find it the
                  > hardest for my mind but for your mathematics college
                  > bound mind it should be a good one.

                  Yes, you're right that it isn't too bad for me. I've read some first
                  chapters a couple of months ago. I will have to read it at some point.

                  mir
                • seeekerofthetruuuuth
                  Thanks for the replies on this topic. I ll be researching on this Laurency and his relation to anthroposophy more deeply in the months to come, and if I get
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks for the replies on this topic. I'll be researching on this
                    Laurency and his relation to anthroposophy more deeply in the months
                    to come, and if I get anything definite and interesting out of it,
                    I'll be posting it over here. More questions might come, but for now,
                    all of my answers have been answered over here and in another place,
                    thanks for all. My father might also research on this.

                    Happy New Year for All!!!

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