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

Re: RS on Quetz. & Tezcat.

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    ... to ... ideas ... Dear Stephen, I actually don t agree at all that your summary is good pertaining to Rudolf Steiner s thoughts on this matter. I am reading
    Message 1 of 33 , Feb 1, 2006

      > I think that is as clear as can be, especially considering that
      > Steiner made no other remarks about these beings which might tend
      > modify these statements. So I think my initial summary of RS's
      > is good and that we should accept them as his ideas on the subject.
      > Personally, in some respects, I think Steiner got his attributions
      > reversed, or at least oversimplified to the point of
      > misrepresentation.

      Dear Stephen,

      I actually don't agree at all that your summary is good pertaining to
      Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on this matter. I am reading that whole
      cycle and I have to say that it is really convoluted and those few
      paragraphs have to be really sensed into and digged into as there is
      a mixing of time periods in them that definitely does not follow my
      teachers way of lecturin. And so much so that if this was the first
      book I had ever read of him I wouldn't have continued on further.
      There is something very mixed up. I mean it is not totally clear when
      he moves in and out of Atlanta, at what point he is speaking of in
      regards to Quetzalcatoatl, if in fact he is speaking of the same one
      we are and as they were many different ones that have been attributed
      to this name, of which he is speaking: I mean is he speaking ...well,
      I'll just say the time periods are very mixed up and I would be very
      very interested in seeing this in German. And I sense a hidden thing
      just as I do the Mother. There is something very very hidden in how
      he relates this and I believe he is also relating the 'Discovering'
      of America to two different time schemes.

      I wouldn't be able to make the claim you are without finding out what
      the original was in German, maybe you have already, who was the
      translator, who was the audience and so forth. The language used in
      this lecture cycle also feels very off. The way he describes
      a 'murder' is also language that I never experienced of him before.
      He also has this very strange scheme of lucifer and them creating
      another planet...well, I had never in all his books read of something
      like that. And I can see if anyone has ever said he sounds like scifi
      must've read that one lecture. My teacher is fairly consistant in how
      he expresses the mystery. He also may very well contradict himself
      often, as Dennis Klocek speaks on, but his language stays pretty much
      the same. This is strange to me.

      I need more time to sense into this and to ask for guidance as to how
      I can find the truth of the matter. I've already just been pointed to
      the clue pertaining to how this cycle slips in and out of 'time'. I
      don't think there is any solid spiritual ground to stand on if we use
      these lectures without specifically digging very deep into how it is
      all put together. I mean have you reread the whole series. It is
      really wierd how he moves in an out of time without really
      explaining it in his usual manner. I

      The slipping in and out of 'time' is a really important one because
      we have something that almost looks like it can go back to the
      beginning days of Adam and Eve. I mean before there were human beings
      as they are today. And then suddenly we are back at the 'discovery'
      of America without any clear delineations. Wierd for my teachers way
      of working or at least in my understanding. But I shall hold it in my
      thoughts and I would like to see if we can readdress this at some
      later point or if you are willing to be open to rereading it again
      with an eye to time cycles specificaly. Also it is pretty interesting
      that I get a very strong feeling from him regarding Bacon's ongoing
      incarnations. Very very interesting. But the time cycles are very
      important for us to look at in regards to Quetzalcoatl and also what
      the German translations are.

      All good things,

      > > > The interesting thing here for a student of Steiner is that in
      > his GA 171, RS states - and reiterates it to make his point - that
      > is an
      > > > adversarial being (Luciferic with Ahrimanic qualities is his
      > > > implication) while Tezcatlipoca is a beneficent being, akin to
      > > > Jehovah.
      > >
      > > See, I don't read GA71 this way at all. Again, unless I have just
      > > read a different passage than you, it seems like a narrow
      > > interpretation of Rudolf Steiner's writing in GA71.
      > From Sept. 18, 1916:
      > Tezcatlipoca: "...other and different mysteries were founded that
      > were designed to counteract the excesses of the Taotl mysteries.
      > These were mysteries in which a being lived who did not come down
      > physical incarnation but also could be perceived by men gifted with
      > certain atavistic clairvoyance when they had been prepared. This
      > being was Tezcatlipoca. That was the name given to the being who,
      > though he belonged to a much lower hierarchy, was partly connected
      > through his qualities with the Jehovah god. He worked in the
      > Hemisphere against those grisly mysteries of which we have spoken."
      > Quetzalcoatl: "The ahrimanic powers sought to "save" humanity,
      > however — I am now speaking as Ahriman though of it — from the god
      > Tezcatlipoca. Another spirit was set up against him who, for the
      > Western Hemisphere, had much in common with the spirit whom Goethe
      > described as Mephistopheles. He was indeed his kin. This spirit was
      > designated with a word that sounded like Quetzalcoatl. He was a
      > spirit who, for this time and part of the earth, was similar to
      > Mephistopheles, although Mephistopheles displayed much more of a
      > nature. Quetzalcoatl also never appeared directly incarnated. His
      > symbol was similar to the Mercury staff to be found in the Eastern
      > Hemisphere, and he was, for the Western Hemisphere, the spirit who
      > could disseminate malignant diseases through certain magic forces.
      > could inflict them upon those whom he wished to injure in order to
      > separate them from the relatively good god, Tezcatlipoca."
      > From Sept. 24, 1916:
      > "Many opposing sects were founded with the object of countering
      > devilish cult. One such sect was that of Tezcatlipoca. He too was a
      > being who did not appear in a physical body but who was known to
      > of the Mexican initiates, in spite of the fact that he lived only
      > an etheric body. Tezcatlipoca was a being akin to Jahve or Jehovah.
      > The aim of his cult, working in opposition to those of Taotl, was
      > establish a Jahve religion suited to the terrible conditions
      > prevailing in Mexico. Tezcatlipoca was a spirit akin to Jahve.
      > Another sect venerated Quetzalcoatl. ...This cult continued through
      > many millennia. It was widely practiced, not in public but within
      > precincts of certain Mexican mysteries, in order that the necessary
      > post-Atlantean cultural impulses might be developed in secret in an
      > ahrimanic form."

      > > And I have to
      > > say, this was the worst lecture that I have ever read in my life
      > > his works. I don't know if it was in the translation or if it was
      > in
      > > the note taking of the person sharing this for posterity. I mean
      > > really, the words were nothing like my teacher speaks, and more
      > along
      > > the lines of a subjective thinking in a way. It felt very
      > subjective
      > > to the person taking the notes or translating. Again, I don't
      > > which but it definitely feels that there is a red herring in that
      > > piece of work.
      > You have much the same feeling as I do about these lectures,
      > I attribute it to what I presume is a temperamental antipathy to
      > subject on Steiner's part. However, he was obligated, for some
      > unstated reason, to speak of these things, but he didn't feel
      > comfortable about it, nor did his audience members. Plus there was
      > serious occult resistance to his speaking of such things.
      > > Dan, I have no idea about that sacrafice, I'll leave it to the
      > to think on. Ick!
      > Although Steiner refers to the Black Magician as a "man", all the
      > varied legends which refer to Vitzliputzli (Huitzilopochtli) have
      > that his adversary, the black magician Coyolxauhqui, was a woman.
      > various esoteric considerations, I deem this accurate. So there is
      > Dark Side to the Goddess which women have to deal with, just as we
      > men have to deal with the oppressive aspects of our masculine diety!
      > Stephen
    • Stephen Clarke
      ... Uh, for what? When you are like you have been recently it is a delight. ... Your intuition on this is correct. Any particular aspect of such a deity or
      Message 33 of 33 , Feb 2, 2006
        Dear Dottie:

        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold
        <dottie_z@...> wrote:
        > Dearest Stephen,
        > I have to thank you for your patience while conversing
        > with me on a subject that is very dear to your heart
        > and one that you have spent many years contemplating.
        > In my earnestness to open up to something sometimes I
        > am too forthright in a thing and I could use a little
        > more consideration in my words. Pardon me.

        Uh, for what? When you are like you have been recently it is a

        > And with that I would like to share a gift you have
        > given me and it is that I have been looking, since the
        > Holy Nights, for the connection between the Four
        > Archangels and Christ. And I have been looking to see
        > how they interrelate with Christ specifically. This
        > site I share with you has to do with an understanding
        > of how the Bacab's were the sons of the Most High God
        > of the Mayan tradition and how they were sent to the
        > Four Corners of the Earth. But something about how
        > they are one with Christ is what I had been looking
        > for. And now I have found it on my travels researching
        > some of what we were speaking on.
        > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread36095/pg
        > I want to offer that I think it is really hard to
        > really come up with a final say as to what color and
        > what pole each of these amazing Four Brothers share. I
        > find them to be on a pole of sorts that has to do with
        > the Kabala and the dance inherent within it. I believe
        > there is an ongoing shift and they are not static.
        > That seems to make the most sense to me in all of the
        > studies I have looked at.

        Your intuition on this is correct. Any particular aspect of such a
        deity or spirit like these is a variable; they can shift or chage
        from culture to culture, from one time-period to another, or between
        different planes of access. Or the beings themselves may swap
        aaspects - the pre-Columbians in particular were crazy about this,
        although there was a method to their madness. But the
        essential "signature" or underlying quality of any elemental
        Direction was constant, i.e; North is structure and dissolution of
        structure, Dark Goddess qualities are always found here, etc.

        Christ is most frequently accessed from without through the West -
        the station of Love, although since his essential marker is his
        identification with the Self, it is the Fifth Direction of the Center
        which is his home plate. Interesting, becasue the Direction of the
        Center has no spatial extension; likewise, the Ego has no body in the
        sense that the physical, etheric, or astral do. And any Center
        point is identical with every other Center point. One who is familiar
        with mathematical theory on this will find a big inspiration on the
        nature of the Christ with this. And it is true: if I find my Center
        in Christ, I have also found yours. Being without dimension, a point-
        entity can go or be - is - anywhere.

        Those people on the link you posted are well-intentioned but
        esoterically uninformed. The similarities between traditions in
        different parts of the world come primarily from their individual
        ability to contact and commune with constant and fixed inner-plane or
        spiritual realities. Yes, there was a lot more navigation and
        migration than we give ancient peoples credit for, but that was
        secondary. And any pair of languages is going to have some odd
        matches; that in itself doesn't prove anything - that's grasping at

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