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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: on date and other things

Expand Messages
  • Albert Sándor
    I am glad you made this post ! I don t care about your intrusion, I realize this part of your statement was not aimed at me, but to the hosts of this group. I
    Message 1 of 3 , May 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I am glad you made this post !
      I don't care about your intrusion, I realize this part of your statement was not aimed at me, but to the hosts of this group. I hope they'll let you "intrude", so we can converse. :)
       
      I do not see how quoting the date of the crucifiction is part of this subject, so I'll neglect it. If it is lack of understanding on my part, please enlighten me.
       
      I hope our conversation  will make room to clarification and deepening of the subject, and I am always happy to learn, and erring is part of this process. You see, I do not ask anyone to agree what I have said.
      In a strict sense, if there is a universal definition of what a christian is of what I am not aware, than some might rightly say that I am not one. But that would lead us to the problem of authority and it's exertion.
      So let us forget the idea that there is a universal definition of a christian, and remain at what I thought, felt, wanted to be one. This way we do not offend others or any authority and we remain in the confines of my personal freedom of thought, a place to I invite you warmly.
       
      Let us adress the problem of the ego, big E or not.
      This is indeed a delicate one.
      The ego is the seat of self consciousness. I am. I exist. This is self consciousness.
      Using the word, ego, usually we man someones sense of identity, self definition. This is me. I am. But who makes this "I am" statement ?
      Usually we do not ask this question, it is obvious that we do, and we concentrate our attention to the part following the word, am, like in I am a man, I am a husband, I am a christian, I am good, I am bad, I am hungry. If one is sincere, one must admit that in fact, we are not anything from the list above. This is hard for most people, because they identify themselves with those properties, let us name them skins, properties, and they think they are the sum of these properties, a mental image, remembrence of our experiences. This is exactly the cause of all pain and suffering, because the I, the ego, identifies Itself with the ever changing nature of life.
      When I say a person who seeks his ego, his inner self, I mean seeking a reality what is beyond of the ephemere, the ever changing persona, created by age, experiences, gender, aso. The need for such a search is obvious for people who are desilusioned by life, by loss of what they previously thought as themselves, but not just them: there are people who have so strong inner experiences that they cannot explain them by their senses, or everyday reason, what dwells on their exertion. So for some people, introverts, using the jungian term, there is soul life where they become immune to the rule of the senses. They seek something of what they feel to be there, but they do not know what it is. Reason cannot take us there because the path is blocked by nihil. One usually cannot transform one's intuitions into reasonable theories. The work of any genius is transforming their intuitions to something other people can understand, in a way, they must do this to test those intuitions to be right - but this process is never final, and totally accurate, exactly because the limitedness of what we mean by reason. This is exactly why some talk about unspeakable realities. They simply cannot be transformed to the language of a a being living in the physical world, with five senses, it's conception on space, time, causality, aso.
      When I talk about the seeking of the Inner Self, or Ego - as Rudolf Steiner uses this latter word, I talk about a goal symbolized by a name. Personally I prefer to use the word Christ, in the manner of the apostle Paul, but on an antrophosophy mail list, the former words are just as meaningful, even if the latter is more meaningful to me. This goal is self knowledge, and what is that self, I do not know yet. This self seeking might take us into the direction of selfishness. You are right my definition of what is a christian does not make sense. Yes, christianity needs faith. Faith is to believe in the existence of the supersensible, in the existence of divine justice, in the existence of God, and His good will towards humanity, in the existence of The Saviour. But this faith expressed in words is far from enough ! We must seek, search, apply, enact, test, everything we have been taught by the Christ, through whatever evidence and remains, traces of His presence here and not only in the external world, where we are bound to percieve it by the senses, but through our soul life. I believe a personal, direct relation can be reached with Christ, not the illsuion of a man whom we love, crucified, gentle, wise, powerful, suffering, but what He really is. Not a concept, or hallucination created by our wishful thinking, but the living truth. I believe this to be possible, and this is what I find to be the basic requirement to be a christian. Today this can be done without clinging too much to the aspects of His humanity. These aspects might make us be better humans, I agree, and I am not condemning it's practice at all, but that is connecting to him through human emotions, while today our intellect is strong enough to grasp somehting of greater significance. Note that I do not use the word reason, but that of intellect, what works through imagination, inspiration, intuition.
       
      Now, this is my explanation of why I did use the words and notions.
       
      After making it, I realize that there is still a lot for me to ponder on, and I am well aware of some of the shrotcomings, I am sure a much better approach is possible, to what I will dedicate some time later;  there is still a lot of room for me to improve - still, I am glad for this opportunity of exercise. If it makes any sense, I am happy, if not, I'll try later. Please feel free to add your thoughts, and if they are criticising all the better.
       
       
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: nuchamber
      Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 6:14 AM
      Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: on date and other things


      Dear Sándor Albert,

      Regarding your Message #37184, Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:13 pm
      //quote:
      In the lecture Cosmic Ego and Human Ego, Steiner states the date of
      3rd of April, year 33 for The Christ's crucifiction. He uses the
      words " as we have been able to determine", what to me suggests that
      this is spiritually experienced truth.

      On union of christians ... a beautiful thought ... but I see that on
      a wider scale than having acommon date for the feast of Passover. If
      by christians we mean any man who seeks his/her inner Self, Ego,
      individuals who seek a personal experience of the divine, and
      individuals who see, respect, love other individuals as themselves,
      than I salute this idea. This definition might include buddhists,
      hindu, moslim, samaritan or even atheists. (as among the latter many
      are just uncompromisng truth seekers nevertheless) .
      //unquote

      While not seeking intrusion into your exchanges, except with your
      permission, and not with any desire to offend your goodself, I should
      like to offer just a few comments that may be useful to you and us as
      to what a Christian is.

      Firstly, your "If by christians we mean any man who seeks his/her
      inner Self, Ego" seems to indicate a position that the innermost
      essence of an individual can be "outside" himself as "seeker". That
      his/her inner self, i.e. ego must somehow be reached over some kind
      of terrain to be traversed. Perhaps this is simply a poorly carved
      statement, however nonetheless, it does allow an opening to denote
      that there is a faculty in man that may seek what he is not "given"
      in actuality, that a man may "seek" what lay outside what you declare
      as "any man" (apparently an undefined "faculty in any man"). By this
      clarification you appear to "salute" a man who is apart from
      an "inner self, ego" as you have stated it.

      Perhaps you had no conscious intention to situate your statement in
      that way, however, I am aware that there are some who have actually
      posited such kinds of statements. I will NOT glue myself to the view
      that what I have described above by me is your position, therefore I
      will just say that a Christian is someone who stands in his inner
      self, his ego; that postulations emanate from the experience in that
      ego/self. The Christian does not seek an "inner self, ego".

      Finally, your "unease" and "inebriation" at the "images"
      and "pictures" of "cross" and "blood" seem consistent with someone
      who has not "understood" his position within his own ego. Perhaps
      that is not the case but as you have declared, only a "superficial
      viewer will say christians must be a sadistic bunch of people".

      In closing, I should say that individuals standing and experiencing
      within their own egos are not immune from error and false
      postulation, even "superficial" statements. But perhaps, patience and
      forgiveness is called for while you gather the "images"
      and "percepts" of "sadistic" individuals.

      On the other hand could there be a legitimate role for the concepts
      of "blood", "cross", "water" and other "things" while one attempts
      to "understand" what cannot be understood "superficially" ?

      Regards, Nuchamber

      --- In anthroposophy_ tomorrow@ yahoogroups. com, Sándor Albert
      <montek@...> wrote:
      >
      > In the lecture Cosmic Ego and Human Ego, Steiner states the date of
      > 3rd of April, year 33 for The Christ's crucifiction. He uses the
      > words " as we have been able to determine", what to me suggests
      that
      > this is spiritually experienced truth.
      >
      > On union of christians ... a beautiful thought ... but I see that
      on
      > a wider scale than having acommon date for the feast of Passover.
      > If by christians we mean any man who seeks his/her inner Self, Ego,
      > individuals who seek a personal experience of the divine, and
      > individuals who see, respect, love other individuals as themselves,
      > than I salute this idea. This definition might include buddhists,
      > hindu, moslim, samaritan or even atheists. (as among the latter
      many
      > are just uncompromisng truth seekers nevertheless)
      >
      > I am a bit uneased by the traditional exoteric christian picture on
      > The Christ, what has the emphasis on Jesus and not the Christ. They
      > say Our Lord Jesus Christ, but they mostly see the man, and relate
      to
      > him as a man, and teach us to love Him as a man. I especially am
      > aversed by Ignatius de Loyola's prayer where they chant, Body of
      > Christ, save me. Blood of Christ, inebriate me. Water from the side
      > of Christ, wash me, and so on ... and they do this regularly. I
      mean
      > if one does not have a deep esoteric undesrtanding, this is a
      > gruesome prayer if you let me. To bring up the image of a human
      being
      > tortured and the phisicalities of this fact, well a superficial
      > viewer will say christians must be a sadistic bunch of people. And
      > the fact that I should be grateful for Him because he did this for
      > me, seems like emotional blackmail, and I see this to produce the
      > feeling of quilt, and that of love. But perhaps I am the sadistic
      > one, who is not ready to understand this great mistery.
      >
      > I cannot identify with this view what see The Christ on the cross,
      as
      > a man, and I should love a man, whom I never met. I love The Christ
      > but not because His suffering, but because what He really is. I
      love
      > The Christ in my heart, and not two thousand years back in time on
      a
      > cross, and not in the future when He's supposed to come again. The
      > Christ is here, now, and everyone who dares to look deep in his/her
      > heart, or to the morning sky in spring, or without judgement to
      > another human being, will find Him. (Also I'd say The Christ is not
      > male - if He'd come to a matriarchal society, I bet He'd been a
      She.)
      >

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