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

Re: The death and possoble resurrection of anthroposophy

Expand Messages
  • dottie zold
    ... Tomberg being the new head ... should be read without ... Dear Uffe, I agree that he should be read without prejudice. For some they can t as it is clear
    Message 1 of 61 , Jun 1, 2006
      > To you Dottie, I would say, that for me it is not a matter of
      Tomberg being the new head
      > of the Society or anything like that. It is just that this teacher
      should be read without
      > prejudice and valued as an inspiration in his own right.

      Dear Uffe,

      I agree that he should be read without prejudice. For some they can't
      as it is clear he left after being rejected by the Society and then
      said some pretty nasty things about Anthroposophy. From the letter
      that I've read that he wrote, I can understand why people would be
      thinking his later work was not for them.

      I found the Meditations book to be very dry. I found no life in it
      for me. I know many anthroposophists who are not pro Tomberg who
      found that book inspirational as well as his early work on the
      Gospels. I have not yet read any of his early work but wouldnt' mind
      if I was able to find them. I shall have to ask the branch library if
      they have any.

      And again, Uffe, I have said before that I really appreciate your
      honest approach to this subject. I clearly disagree with you but I
      have found you to be honest and sincere. I can not say this about
      Joel. Not to bag on him but I experience a whole different integrity
      issue that works within you that I find lacking in some other Tomberg
      students. So although we may disagree I love that I trust you.

      An inspiration featuring some
      > basic similarities to Steiners teachings, but also an impulse of
      thought in its own and
      > completely independent right. There is no reason to be threatened
      by differing or even
      > opposing lines of thinking, if they contain a valid truth, they
      belong to the Church of
      > Truth.

      I really don't think of it as being threatened in any manner. I think
      it is a matter of having different opinions of where we heading and
      why. My teacher Rudolf Steiner has encouraged through his own work
      the need to study those that agree and you would think disagree with
      your own outlook. His whole body of work is about freedom and
      achieving it. Big part of why many of us see the Catholic Church very
      different than you.

      I also don't see this 'Church of Truth' as you do. I think of it as
      mankind. I find that it is the path of anthroposophy that allows one
      to truly tread onwards to the path of freedom. I think the Church is
      the antithesis of that.

      Could anthroposophists be more open to certain things? Absolutely.
      And I think that is really starting to flourish. Did they get stuck
      in Steiner said and that is that? Absolutely. And I am hearing a
      similar veneration from you and other pro Tomberg students towards
      him and the church.

      The big issues is when you say something or repeat something
      like 'Anthroposophy is dead'. I don't think you can know that. You
      can certainly say that but Steinre's path would require that you have
      an understanding of how you could know that. Not just what it looks
      like to the outer eye but what the truth of it is in the spiritual

      The paper you offered up was a subjective one designed to show how
      Anthroposophy is failing or has failed because they have not paid
      enought attention to the historical church. That's not a known
      spiritual reality that is a physical thought off of feeling. There's
      nothing objective about that and Rudolf Steiner's work is all about

      The christian spiritual path as I know it, is not one of keeping the
      faith in one truth,
      > but rather one of fusing the opposites into a still greater, more
      subtle and refined
      > conception of truth. This practice, called cunniunctio oppositorum,
      is the path and heart of
      > hermetic teaching.

      I don't think it is so much about fusing. And because I understand
      you to mean that we will fuse with the church I take issue with that.
      Rudolf Steiner's path was not to be in the Church specifically just
      like it was not mine. He states that if he had come across the monks
      earlier in his life he would've become one. However he could look
      back and see what his life, this new thinking, this new path, was to
      develop for mankind. And the church had no place in this type of
      thinking as the hierarchal structure was clearly in place and it was
      one of obedience. Just this week many in a Catholic congretation were
      asked to leave because they refused the new Father's order not to
      kneel. So the man shows his true colors by kicking them out and I am
      thinking it has to do with Lucifer catching on that people are
      starting to want think about their own freedom that he has decided
      to beat them to the chase.

      > And by the way, I'm not a Catholic.

      But not because you have not tried. And I for one wish that your
      friend had not ratted you out to the preacher and that you would've
      been able to be one. I think if that is what your desire was to be it
      should've been granted. But as i am one to trust a thing I trust
      there was some reason.

      At least not in the narrow institutional sense that you
      > imply. But I admit to be catholic in the more litteral sense, that
      I believe in the oneness
      > and sanctity of Truth and thereby also in the one universal Church
      of Christ.

      I know. And I don't think of things in those terms nor do I see any
      objective truth in that understanding. It feels very subjective to
      your feelings which is fine. In Rudolf Steiner's work you would have
      to be aware of that and from there then make a conscious choice as to
      your future.

      And for me
      > both Steiner and Tomberg belongs to this one Church, as does many
      other great teachers
      > of love and wisdom, as do their disciples.

      Uffe, I don't consider Christ a church. And somehow it seems that is
      how it looks from what you say. Steiner is in the matrix of mankind.
      And he is one in Christ. But to put the church in the lead like you
      do and other Tomberg students do I think is an error in thinking.
      That is my thought. I can't imagine you shall see it any differently
      nor I. What we can both do is see if we are being objective in our
      thinking and why we think of it in the terms we do.

      Who unfortunately often have a very bad habbit
      > of detesting, arguing and battling against each other, wasting
      their vital energy on
      > misunderstandings and intrigues, instead of joining forces in the
      battle against the very
      > real evils of this world.

      Right, but I don't think it is under the Church's domain. I think it
      is under Christ's domain and that he belongs to all and not to one
      Church of Truth as you put it.

      > The Anthroposophical Society is really nothing special in this
      regard. You find it in any
      > sect, including the historical church itself (or in the competing
      cultures of science for that
      > matter). The spirit of arrogance works in all human societies,
      without regard. Identifying
      > Lucifer in your own heart and ranks is an indispensible part of the
      christian healing
      > proces, leading to the severing of illusions, complete humiliation,
      and ultimately the
      > fusing of all good forces into the living Body of Christ.

      I think its actually important to see Lucifer outside of yourself not
      inside you. Inside he takes over and its a feely feely life. Outside
      of yourself you can see him for what it is. Inside you can have no
      true knowledge of him or so it seems to me.

      > And I asure you, Anthroposophy is really nothing special.

      Uffe, you could assure me of no such thing. If anything it shows me
      you are not well read in Anthroposophical literature. Somehow you may
      have found either Tomberg via Steiner or most likely found Steiner
      via Tomberg. But your teacher is clearly Tomberg. In that you, like
      him, would find nothign special about Anthroposophy. His was due to
      hurt feelings and being misled by another Being, you on the other
      hand are working with a lack of knowledge or study of Steiner's work
      to know of what you speak. You seem to have a feeling but not an
      objective knowledge. No insult intended.

      It's just another tiny peakhole
      > aiming to shake the walls of human stupidity, a small glimpse into
      the endless ocean of
      > Truth.

      Hardly Uffe. But that's all good because I am okay that you think
      that. But please consider that just because you think that does not
      make it so. And if you wanted to know of what you speak you would
      have to do a study for yourself.

      How can such a small and manmade cup, however grandiously concieved
      > however flowing with heavenly nectar it may be, ever contain, not
      to say empty the ocean?
      > Therefore wise men have always told us, that a truly rich man must
      live by his empty cup,
      > pleased to have it filled anywhere the soup is served.
      > So drink up my friend, there is no reason to adore the cup.

      Dear Uffe, I am not nor have I ever been in adoration of anyone other
      than the Christ Jesus. Not another soul had called that forth from
      within me. I work the anthroposophical path, that you can not see the
      difference between this and others is something for you to consider
      if you've done enough study that would make that true or if it is a
      statement again from what you feel. Nothing wrong with that but good
      to note.

      All good things,
    • dottie zold
      Frank, thanks for your support! I must say though I did not spell desert correctly. It should be pea in the desert because I could not find needle for the
      Message 61 of 61 , Jun 2, 2006
        Frank, thanks for your support! I must say though I
        did not spell desert correctly. It should be pea in
        the desert because I could not find needle for the
        haystack! but then I was thinking before the pea came
        that I could use camel through the eye of the...and I
        couldn't come to needle again or it too would've led
        me to 'needle in a haystack...and then I thought of
        peas in a pod...but that didn't really express what I
        wanted to say about the camel going through the eye of
        the...fill in the blank, hence pea in the desert. See
        how my thinking arrived at pea in the desert?

        > > Hi Dottie,
        > >
        > > I think the phrase you are looking for is "a
        > needle
        > > in a haystack."
        > > Sorry, the misspelling is in the title of the
        > > thread, but I fixed it
        > > on this branch!
        > Shit, anyone can say "needle in a haystack". But
        > Dottie is creative: "Pea in the dessert". Wheh!
        > Frank
        > Frank Thomas Smith
        > http://SouthernCrossReview.org
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
        > protection around
        > http://mail.yahoo.com

        Do You Yahoo!?
        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.