Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: sex
- View SourceRaymon wrote:
> > > Mike is not alone here - the idea that love has nothing to do withPaulina wrote:
> > > sex was promoted by Steiner too.
> This is news to me and I'e been studying RS for over thirty years. HeI have also read this by RS but don't remember the reference. What he said
> was remarkable silent on the subject of sex, so I can only assume you
> have read something I have not. How about backing up your statement here
> with the Steiner reference?
was that love should not be confused with sexuality, and that when
sexuality and love blended, it was a very coincidental happenstance - and
then he said something about a train hitting something on the track or a
similar metaphor. It would be useful if someone with better memory could
look it up and quote it.
Steiner also echoed Thomas Aquinas when he indicated that sex was for
reproduction only, and that a marriage licence was no ticket to sexual
excesses between two people. Thomas Aquinas wrote under the subject title
"On Fornication" that every emission of semen that is not an endeavor to
cause pregnancy, is a sin against nature. (I don't remember seeing a
comparable reference by Aquinas to the female orgasm however, but in the
PoF, Steiner says that the woman trades the pleasure of sexual intercourse
with the pain of childbirth.)
So Steiner was indeed "a prude" in at least two of his incarnations.
- View SourceHello Brad, Dottie, all interested,
Thanks for your posts on Sex, Science, Parthenogenesis, the Copies of
Christ (etheric, astral) body, and so on in light of our sciences of
gene manipulation today (that particular terror).
Brad and Dottie, you speak of the need for discovery of the Grail and
our inner connections (six degrees of separation, that we can
discover among souls).--I agree, and yet am also concerned more and
more about how the Grail legends are cast in European terms and
epistemology. Europe is great. No problem. And yet Europe is not all
there is. I've been incarnated in the Americas and wonder what is the
equivalent (or different) way of knowing, understanding that comes
out of the Americas (and within the Americas, of course, there is
also great diversity...and that raises further questions for another
The Grail? The Cauldron? The Chalice? The Native American pot (or
pots?). Blood? The feminine? Menstruation? (That instead of, or
besides, war?) Blood and the Crucifixion?
Also, the matter of generation? Through sex and sperm-egg, or through
the lips, Word, Vulva. The Creative Word? The Matriarchal line
(something for men and women)?
Videotape? Ahrimanic Vulva? Ahrimanic lie?
Lots of questions.
I may be slow to read mail since I will be away for a few days, but
will check in when I return.