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

Anthroposphical spiritual fruits

Expand Messages
  • ottmar12
    Hello Stephen, I remember that you asked me something like: Are there any positive results, spiritual achievements within the anthroposophical movement? (I
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment

      Hello Stephen,

       

      I remember that you asked me something like: Are there any positive results, spiritual achievements within the anthroposophical movement? (I hope I understood you correctly and it wasn't just a rhetorical question.) Well, the anthro scene here in Germany is quite differentiated, highly specialized into many different fields. In the broad public the anthro inspired activities enjoy a very good reputation: the doctors, clinics, schools, farms, food, banking, etc. But you didn't ask for social,  economic or artistic activities, but rather for attempts or achievements in the sphere of attaining first hand knowledge of the spiritual world, or development of the higher components of man, like the consciousness soul and Manas.

       

      That's a difficult question indeed. Who will or would claim success in these fields publicly, who would dare to call him- or herself an advanced disciple? If anyone did so, it would mean the contrary as a matter of fact. However there are some women and men, who are known to the public, who implicitly claim to have achieved or made some progress. There are for example half a dozend or more who claim to be able to do karmic research. To name some: Heide Oehms, Christiane Feuerstack, both Germans, Marianne Carolus is Dutch, Jostein Saether, Norwegian. (Our Norwegian friend on this list certainly knows him.) They have all written books about their work. Heide Oehms, for example, works with a group of co-workers, who do research especially in the 13 th century Cathar and Grail history, checking and verifying each other on what each member of that group found has out. Thus they try to eliminate errors and individual perspectives, a sort of scientific approach.

      Of course, the work of these four is disputed, there are those who immediately look out for contradictions between their work and what Steiner said. There are long stories to these findings and activities, they all work slightly different.

      My attitude to this kind of individual and historic karma research is: I don`t reject it, I can't really judge it, many things make sense to me. However I don't like very personal stories, I once discouraged a friend to publish such a kind of content in a book of his.

       

      I think you've heard of Yonassan Gershom, Beyond the Ashes. Cases of Reincarnation from the Holocaust      and    From Ashes to Healing. Mystical Encounters with the Holocaust.   Both books appeared in the US in the Edgar Cayce Press, in German in an anthro Press.  It's some years that I've read these books and I remember, that all cases told there, except one, were in the same way convincing to me. Y. Gershom was invited several times by anthro institutions in Germany and Holland. (Asked why he spoke so often in front of anthros he answered openly: They pay best.)  Of course immediately there was opposition towards him on the ground of Steiner quotations, that such fast reincarnation is near to impossible and so on.

       

      There are many more in the anthro scene who have personal experience in karmic research, who give counselling and seminars.   There are some other anthros who write or talk about their spiritual experiences, what they found out about the historic Jesus, Judith von Halle,   about Atlantean or Lemurian times, even about old Saturn. These people are of course highly controversialy, ridiculed and fiercely fought. And there are many many more anthroposophs who hardly ever or never talk about their experiences in public or private.

       

      There is a great responsibility for those who talk about new occult knowledge,

      -on one side it must be given to the public, because those researching after you in the same direction and same subject must first know what someone before them found out, otherwise they won't be able to find it and research further and

      –on the other side there, is the problem, the great danger of error, which can never be avoided, not even by high initiates.

       

      So, Stephen, I would say, the anthro esoteric science isn't without fruit, isn't infertile, isn't a barren land.  (OK, I expect some caustic comments by?+? or perhaps even some building ideas.)

      Greetings Ottmar

    • elfuncle
      ... This group has always had at least a handful of Scandinavian subscribers and contributors, so I assume you re not talking about me. I apparently ought to
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12" <ottmar12@...> wrote:

        > To name some: Heide Oehms, Christiane Feuerstack, both
        > Germans, Marianne Carolus is Dutch, Jostein Saether, Norwegian. (Our
        > Norwegian friend on this list certainly knows him.)


        This group has always had at least a handful of Scandinavian subscribers and contributors, so I assume you're not talking about me. I apparently ought to know about Mr. Saether after looking him up in the wikipedia , but I'm far less knowledgeable of cultures and things anthroposophical than some people assume. Basically, I'm a formally uneducated simpeleton who has just read a few books in prison and behind the wheels of taxicabs....

        > My attitude to this kind of individual and historic karma research is: I
        > don`t reject it, I can't really judge it, many things make sense to
        > me. However I don't like very personal stories, I once discouraged a
        > friend to publish such a kind of content in a book of his.


        The sentiments you describe here have also been my own, and they still are....

        > Y. Gershom was
        > invited several times by anthro institutions in Germany and Holland.

        > (Asked why he spoke so often in front of anthros he answered openly:
        > They pay best.)


        I don't necessarily buy that at surface value. Gershom is a Jewish rabbi, of the Hasidic tradition I think (see picture below), and and he does not want to be suspected of being an anthroposophists, but he may be a closet one for all we know, just like very many Catholics are.



        I got an email from the guy once, probably close to a decade ago, when I was constructing all those link pages on my website, including Anthroposophical Links, Anarchist Links, Christian Links, Jewish Links, etc. and I did several links to Gershom's stuff and asked him some sort of info about it. In his response, he emphasized most strongly that he was not an anthroposophist and, I seem to recall,  that he most certainly did not want my website to suggest any such thing.

        I am amused, however, to see his remark that he speaks to anthros because they pay best, because that reminds me of the great late actor and movie star Robert Mitchum, who always endeavored to maintain the public image that he was lazy and worked only for the money. He even said that to the Norwegian press when he participated in a movie project that could afford to pay him very little beyond his plane ticket and hotel; Mitchum always tried to hide the fact that he loved his work so much that he would have done it for nothing.




        > Of course immediately there was opposition towards him
        > on the ground of Steiner quotations, that such fast reincarnation is
        > near to impossible and so on.


        One could make this opposition even stronger on the ground of Blavatsky quotations; she gave an average of 600 years between incarnations. I believe this resonates with Steiner at some points, but he also cites many exceptions, and if we consider the 600 years as applying to those living into advanced old age, or at least the three score and ten, we are left with the possibility that very young children who die, especially when their deaths are forced upon them from external violent circumstances, have been deprived of their life missions and self-development and may therefore seek re-entry as soon as possible.

        My mom once mentioned something she had read or heard from very poor corners of the world where Hinduism or Buddhism was dominant (i.e. cultures cognizant of reincarnation), where some families had too many children, who were dying from diseases, thee was lots of infant mortality and so on -- And some of these mothers were challenged by Westerners about the sense of having so many children who did not make it; they replied that the same souls were trying time and time again to incarnate into their families.

        And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked into the Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging against anthroposophical skepticism towards the virtue of abortion, that someone had said that a woman who aborts her unborn child, may be followed around by that unborn soul. And of course the hole creatures find such an idea utterly reprehensible and disgusting, so they sit down in a circle holding hands and do a mantra against Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and especially the Waldorf culture.



        > There are many more in the anthro scene who have personal experience in
        > karmic research, who give counselling and seminars. There are some
        > other anthros who write or talk about their spiritual experiences, what
        > they found out about the historic Jesus, Judith von Halle, about
        > Atlantean or Lemurian times, even about old Saturn. These people are of
        > course highly controversialy, ridiculed and fiercely fought. And there
        > are many many more anthroposophs who hardly ever or never talk about
        > their experiences in public or private.


        I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public is really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline of silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and error....

        And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found that I must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they haven't done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings and so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.

        http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
         

        Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must have known even in those early years, you were so completely silent about occult matters until your fortieth year?

        Rudolf Steiner:
        I had to make a certain position for myself in the world first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my earlier work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And, moreover, I had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs courage to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this courage.

        In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue to shut up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of which you speak:

        Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
        Rudolf Steiner:
        I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure of.
        Friedrich Rittelmeyer:
        I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny had to correct your first impressions and results of research?
        Rudolf Steiner:
        Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason for it. For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you, the fog itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
        Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
        Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life will often creep in that one cannot foresee.

        Cheers,

        Tarjei
      • val2160
        ... wrote: And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked into the Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
          <coolvibes@...> wrote:

          And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked into the
          Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging against
          anthroposophical skepticism towards the virtue of abortion, that someone
          had said that a woman who aborts her unborn child, may be followed
          around by that unborn soul.
          And of course the hole creatures find such an idea utterly reprehensible
          and disgusting, so they sit down in a circle holding hands and do a
          mantra against Rudolf Steiner, anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and
          especially the Waldorf culture.

          If the above is true then they obviously lack the strength of their own
          conviction.-Val
        • ottmar12
          Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments. Tarjei: I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty is arrived at, and the subject matter to
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
          • 0 Attachment

             Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments.

             

            Tarjei:

            I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public is really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline of silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and error....

            And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found that I must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they haven't done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings and so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.

             

            Ottmar: I agree 100 per cent.   Repeat it as often as you can. 

             

             

            On Yonassam Gershom: He gave this answer to a friend in Amsterdam, I personally wasn't present there.  I believe Y.Gershom that he has no inclination to anthroposophy  at all. I've heard that he doesn't persue the matter of people coming back from the holocaut anymore.

             

             

            The 600-year-rule of reincarnation isn't valid in our present time, I think. There are more exceptions than the rule today.  –fast development in the world means the need to learn now, like in each new period  -see the 7 billion people today  -the aristotelian anthros coming back at the end of 20 th century (but where are the great platonici??) –and and

             

             

             

             

             

             

            Tarjei: In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue to shut up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of which you speak:

             

            Ottmars answer: Okay, but…  You can never be abolutely sure, there are always some higher aspects, points of view which make your finding relative. And you have a responsibility whenever you find something. You always `pay' for knowledge, most often with `pain' (Steiner), but the story doesn't end here. Someone may need your finding or result of your search. True knowledge is a burden and not ammunition for agruements.

            Greetings Ottmar

             

             


            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <coolvibes@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12" ottmar12@
            > wrote:
            >
            > > To name some: Heide Oehms, Christiane Feuerstack, both
            > > Germans, Marianne Carolus is Dutch, Jostein Saether, Norwegian. (Our
            > > Norwegian friend on this list certainly knows him.)
            >
            > This group has always had at least a handful of Scandinavian subscribers
            > and contributors, so I assume you're not talking about me. I apparently
            > ought to know about Mr. Saether after looking him up in the wikipedia
            > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostein_Saether> , but I'm far less
            > knowledgeable of cultures and things anthroposophical than some people
            > assume. Basically, I'm a formally uneducated simpeleton who has just
            > read a few books in prison and behind the wheels of taxicabs....
            >
            > > My attitude to this kind of individual and historic karma research is:
            > I
            > > don`t reject it, I can't really judge it, many things make sense to
            > > me. However I don't like very personal stories, I once discouraged a
            > > friend to publish such a kind of content in a book of his.
            >
            > The sentiments you describe here have also been my own, and they still
            > are....
            >
            > > Y. Gershom was
            > > invited several times by anthro institutions in Germany and Holland.
            > > (Asked why he spoke so often in front of anthros he answered openly:
            > > They pay best.)
            >
            > I don't necessarily buy that at surface value. Gershom is a Jewish
            > rabbi, of the Hasidic tradition I think (see picture below), and and he
            > does not want to be suspected of being an anthroposophists, but he may
            > be a closet one for all we know, just like very many Catholics are.
            >
            >
            >
            > I got an email from the guy once, probably close to a decade ago, when I
            > was constructing all those link pages on my website, including
            > Anthroposophical Links, Anarchist Links, Christian Links, Jewish Links,
            > etc. and I did several links to Gershom's stuff and asked him some sort
            > of info about it. In his response, he emphasized most strongly that he
            > was not an anthroposophist and, I seem to recall, that he most
            > certainly did not want my website to suggest any such thing.
            >
            > I am amused, however, to see his remark that he speaks to anthros
            > because they pay best, because that reminds me of the great late actor
            > and movie star Robert Mitchum, who always endeavored to maintain the
            > public image that he was lazy and worked only for the money. He even
            > said that to the Norwegian press when he participated in a movie project
            > that could afford to pay him very little beyond his plane ticket and
            > hotel; Mitchum always tried to hide the fact that he loved his work so
            > much that he would have done it for nothing.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > > Of course immediately there was opposition towards him
            > > on the ground of Steiner quotations, that such fast reincarnation is
            > > near to impossible and so on.
            >
            > One could make this opposition even stronger on the ground of Blavatsky
            > quotations; she gave an average of 600 years between incarnations. I
            > believe this resonates with Steiner at some points, but he also cites
            > many exceptions, and if we consider the 600 years as applying to those
            > living into advanced old age, or at least the three score and ten, we
            > are left with the possibility that very young children who die,
            > especially when their deaths are forced upon them from external violent
            > circumstances, have been deprived of their life missions and
            > self-development and may therefore seek re-entry as soon as possible.
            >
            > My mom once mentioned something she had read or heard from very poor
            > corners of the world where Hinduism or Buddhism was dominant (i.e.
            > cultures cognizant of reincarnation), where some families had too many
            > children, who were dying from diseases, thee was lots of infant
            > mortality and so on -- And some of these mothers were challenged by
            > Westerners about the sense of having so many children who did not make
            > it; they replied that the same souls were trying time and time again to
            > incarnate into their families.
            >
            > And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked into the
            > Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging against
            > anthroposophical skepticism towards the virtue of abortion, that someone
            > had said that a woman who aborts her unborn child, may be followed
            > around by that unborn soul. And of course the hole creatures find such
            > an idea utterly reprehensible and disgusting, so they sit down in a
            > circle holding hands and do a mantra against Rudolf Steiner,
            > anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and especially the Waldorf culture.
            >
            >
            >
            > > There are many more in the anthro scene who have personal experience
            > in
            > > karmic research, who give counselling and seminars. There are some
            > > other anthros who write or talk about their spiritual experiences,
            > what
            > > they found out about the historic Jesus, Judith von Halle, about
            > > Atlantean or Lemurian times, even about old Saturn. These people are
            > of
            > > course highly controversialy, ridiculed and fiercely fought. And there
            > > are many many more anthroposophs who hardly ever or never talk about
            > > their experiences in public or private.
            >
            > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty
            > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public is
            > really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline of
            > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline
            > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and
            > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
            > error....
            >
            > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her
            > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without
            > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found that I
            > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims
            > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they haven't
            > done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings and
            > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
            >
            > http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
            > <%20http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html>
            >
            > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must have
            > known even in those early years, you were so completely silent about
            > occult matters until your fortieth year?
            >
            > Rudolf Steiner: I had to make a certain position for myself in the world
            > first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my earlier
            > work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And, moreover, I
            > had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I
            > could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That
            > was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs courage
            > to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this courage.
            >
            > In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue to shut
            > up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of which you
            > speak:
            >
            > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your
            > investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
            > Rudolf Steiner: I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure of.
            > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny had to
            > correct your first impressions and results of research?
            > Rudolf Steiner: Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason for it.
            > For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you, the fog
            > itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
            > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit
            > afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
            > Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been
            > deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life will
            > often creep in that one cannot foresee.
            >
            > Cheers,
            >
            > Tarjei
            >

          • pj.geary
            As a newcomer here, I offer the following: About souls deciding to reincarnate relatively quickly – there can be some technical difficulties around that for
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              As a newcomer here, I offer the following:


              About souls deciding to reincarnate relatively quickly – there can be
              some technical difficulties around that for the incarnating
              individual. If we focus on the personal sacrifice and courage that is
              required to perform such an act, we may glimpse the level of love and
              commitment to the well being of all the earth and her many souls. It
              is clearly a step towards the service of a bodhisattva.

              Individuals struggling alone to share their spiritual investigations
              and the memories of other lifetimes merit a safe circle in which to
              practice such efforts. This was the problem RS faced in his lifetime –
              others lacked courage and commitment. So he took up alone the
              communication of knowledge. The degree of ridicule one experiences
              has more to do with one's fear of ridicule which then manifests than
              the opposing forces. One can witness the nightmare yet be part of
              something new that is resonant with safety. No one vision, nor the
              visions of any one individual, are entirely correct. Reality is
              constantly reinventing itself through the conscious awareness of all.

              As the Divine Feminine returns to us and reveals her wonders, she
              needs our assistance to manifest fully in the world. Turning to Her
              for guidance can provide the way. She will bring the balance, ease
              the burden of Christ and eventually heal those opposing forces who
              are so painful to us all in their denial of the power of love. When
              we stand for Her in the world, we discover Christ at our side.

              RS stated that if he could change the name `anthroposophy' every day,
              that he would. The world is remarkably resonant with much of the
              knowledge of anthroposophy, the relationship with the being of
              anthroposophy, but it is not always called by that name. The Divine
              has many names, many faces. It is the coming together of those
              diverse names that will make the difference someday, not the vision
              or opinions of any individual or group. If we ask Sophia to reveal
              herself to us in the world, she generates a luminescence in many
              places, in many names. She reveals the fearlessness of love and that
              lights our way.

              Patricia




              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12"
              <ottmar12@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments.
              >
              >
              >
              > Tarjei:
              >
              > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute
              certainty
              > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public
              is
              > really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline
              of
              > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline
              > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and
              > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
              > error....
              >
              > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her
              > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without
              > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found
              that I
              > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims
              > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they
              haven't
              > done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings
              and
              > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
              >
              >
              >
              > Ottmar: I agree 100 per cent. Repeat it as often as you can.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Yonassam Gershom: He gave this answer to a friend in Amsterdam, I
              > personally wasn't present there. I believe Y.Gershom that he has no
              > inclination to anthroposophy at all. I've heard that he doesn't
              > persue the matter of people coming back from the holocaut anymore.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > The 600-year-rule of reincarnation isn't valid in our present time,
              > I think. There are more exceptions than the rule today. –fast
              > development in the world means the need to learn now, like in each
              new
              > period -see the 7 billion people today -the aristotelian anthros
              > coming back at the end of 20 th century (but where are the great
              > platonici??) –and and
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Tarjei: In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then
              continue
              > to shut up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that
              of
              > which you speak:
              >
              >
              >
              > Ottmars answer: Okay, but… You can never be abolutely sure, there
              > are always some higher aspects, points of view which make your
              finding
              > relative. And you have a responsibility whenever you find
              something. You
              > always `pay' for knowledge, most often with `pain'
              > (Steiner), but the story doesn't end here. Someone may need your
              > finding or result of your search. True knowledge is a burden and not
              > ammunition for agruements.
              >
              > Greetings Ottmar
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
              > <coolvibes@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12"
              ottmar12@
              > > wrote:
              > >
              > > > To name some: Heide Oehms, Christiane Feuerstack, both
              > > > Germans, Marianne Carolus is Dutch, Jostein Saether, Norwegian.
              (Our
              > > > Norwegian friend on this list certainly knows him.)
              > >
              > > This group has always had at least a handful of Scandinavian
              > subscribers
              > > and contributors, so I assume you're not talking about me. I
              > apparently
              > > ought to know about Mr. Saether after looking him up in the
              wikipedia
              > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostein_Saether> , but I'm far less
              > > knowledgeable of cultures and things anthroposophical than some
              people
              > > assume. Basically, I'm a formally uneducated simpeleton who has
              just
              > > read a few books in prison and behind the wheels of taxicabs....
              > >
              > > > My attitude to this kind of individual and historic karma
              research
              > is:
              > > I
              > > > don`t reject it, I can't really judge it, many things make
              sense to
              > > > me. However I don't like very personal stories, I once
              discouraged a
              > > > friend to publish such a kind of content in a book of his.
              > >
              > > The sentiments you describe here have also been my own, and they
              still
              > > are....
              > >
              > > > Y. Gershom was
              > > > invited several times by anthro institutions in Germany and
              Holland.
              > > > (Asked why he spoke so often in front of anthros he answered
              openly:
              > > > They pay best.)
              > >
              > > I don't necessarily buy that at surface value. Gershom is a Jewish
              > > rabbi, of the Hasidic tradition I think (see picture below), and
              and
              > he
              > > does not want to be suspected of being an anthroposophists, but
              he may
              > > be a closet one for all we know, just like very many Catholics
              are.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > I got an email from the guy once, probably close to a decade ago,
              when
              > I
              > > was constructing all those link pages on my website, including
              > > Anthroposophical Links, Anarchist Links, Christian Links, Jewish
              > Links,
              > > etc. and I did several links to Gershom's stuff and asked him some
              > sort
              > > of info about it. In his response, he emphasized most strongly
              that he
              > > was not an anthroposophist and, I seem to recall, that he most
              > > certainly did not want my website to suggest any such thing.
              > >
              > > I am amused, however, to see his remark that he speaks to anthros
              > > because they pay best, because that reminds me of the great late
              actor
              > > and movie star Robert Mitchum, who always endeavored to maintain
              the
              > > public image that he was lazy and worked only for the money. He
              even
              > > said that to the Norwegian press when he participated in a movie
              > project
              > > that could afford to pay him very little beyond his plane ticket
              and
              > > hotel; Mitchum always tried to hide the fact that he loved his
              work so
              > > much that he would have done it for nothing.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > Of course immediately there was opposition towards him
              > > > on the ground of Steiner quotations, that such fast
              reincarnation is
              > > > near to impossible and so on.
              > >
              > > One could make this opposition even stronger on the ground of
              > Blavatsky
              > > quotations; she gave an average of 600 years between
              incarnations. I
              > > believe this resonates with Steiner at some points, but he also
              cites
              > > many exceptions, and if we consider the 600 years as applying to
              those
              > > living into advanced old age, or at least the three score and
              ten, we
              > > are left with the possibility that very young children who die,
              > > especially when their deaths are forced upon them from external
              > violent
              > > circumstances, have been deprived of their life missions and
              > > self-development and may therefore seek re-entry as soon as
              possible.
              > >
              > > My mom once mentioned something she had read or heard from very
              poor
              > > corners of the world where Hinduism or Buddhism was dominant (i.e.
              > > cultures cognizant of reincarnation), where some families had too
              many
              > > children, who were dying from diseases, thee was lots of infant
              > > mortality and so on -- And some of these mothers were challenged
              by
              > > Westerners about the sense of having so many children who did not
              make
              > > it; they replied that the same souls were trying time and time
              again
              > to
              > > incarnate into their families.
              > >
              > > And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked
              into
              > the
              > > Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging against
              > > anthroposophical skepticism towards the virtue of abortion, that
              > someone
              > > had said that a woman who aborts her unborn child, may be followed
              > > around by that unborn soul. And of course the hole creatures find
              such
              > > an idea utterly reprehensible and disgusting, so they sit down in
              a
              > > circle holding hands and do a mantra against Rudolf Steiner,
              > > anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and especially the Waldorf
              culture.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > There are many more in the anthro scene who have personal
              experience
              > > in
              > > > karmic research, who give counselling and seminars. There are
              some
              > > > other anthros who write or talk about their spiritual
              experiences,
              > > what
              > > > they found out about the historic Jesus, Judith von Halle, about
              > > > Atlantean or Lemurian times, even about old Saturn. These
              people are
              > > of
              > > > course highly controversialy, ridiculed and fiercely fought. And
              > there
              > > > are many many more anthroposophs who hardly ever or never talk
              about
              > > > their experiences in public or private.
              > >
              > > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute
              > certainty
              > > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the
              public is
              > > really something that the public needs to know. The very
              discipline of
              > > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding
              discipline
              > > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research,
              and
              > > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
              > > error....
              > >
              > > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or
              her
              > > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief
              without
              > > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found
              that
              > I
              > > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual
              claims
              > > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they
              > haven't
              > > done their basic work on personal character and control of
              feelings
              > and
              > > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
              > >
              > > http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
              > > <%20http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html>
              > >
              > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must
              have
              > > known even in those early years, you were so completely silent
              about
              > > occult matters until your fortieth year?
              > >
              > > Rudolf Steiner: I had to make a certain position for myself in the
              > world
              > > first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
              > earlier
              > > work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And,
              moreover, I
              > > had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point
              where I
              > > could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them.
              That
              > > was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs
              courage
              > > to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this
              > courage.
              > >
              > > In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue
              to
              > shut
              > > up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of
              which
              > you
              > > speak:
              > >
              > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your
              > > investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
              > > Rudolf Steiner: I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure
              of.
              > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny
              had to
              > > correct your first impressions and results of research?
              > > Rudolf Steiner: Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason
              for
              > it.
              > > For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you,
              the fog
              > > itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
              > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit
              > > afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
              > > Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been
              > > deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life
              will
              > > often creep in that one cannot foresee.
              > >
              > > Cheers,
              > >
              > > Tarjei
              > >
              >
            • Frank Thomas Smith
              ... I think there is another factor involved here. Steiner was a brilliant intellectual (See Der Andere Rudolf Steiner for what his contemporaries thought of
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12"
                <ottmar12@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments.
                >
                >
                >
                > Tarjei:
                >
                > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty
                > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public is
                > really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline of
                > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline
                > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and
                > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
                > error....
                >
                > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her
                > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without
                > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found that I
                > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims
                > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they haven't
                > done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings and
                > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
                >
                >
                >
                > Ottmar: I agree 100 per cent. Repeat it as often as you can.
                >

                I think there is another factor involved here. Steiner was a brilliant
                intellectual (See "Der Andere Rudolf Steiner" for what his
                contemporaries thought of him before anthroposophy), a warm-hearted
                individual, according to some, a spellbinding speaker and with a
                charisma to out-wrestle Obama. Now, let's say that Joe the Plumber is
                clairvoyant. He'd be flushed down the toilet. What I mean to ssay is
                that any individual who claims clairvoyance or initiation must first
                be taken very seriously in relation to other aspects first (as Steiner
                says below). Someting similar is true for the arts. Picasso got away
                with much of his cubist and other non-traditional work because it was
                known that he was a damn god painter traditionally as well.
                Frank





                > > http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
                > > <%20http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html>
                > >
                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must have
                > > known even in those early years, you were so completely silent about
                > > occult matters until your fortieth year?
                > >
                > > Rudolf Steiner: I had to make a certain position for myself in the
                > world
                > > first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
                > earlier
                > > work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And, moreover, I
                > > had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where I
                > > could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That
                > > was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs courage
                > > to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this
                > courage.
                > >
                > > In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue to
                > shut
                > > up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of which
                > you
                > > speak:
                > >
                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your
                > > investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
                > > Rudolf Steiner: I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure of.
                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny had to
                > > correct your first impressions and results of research?
                > > Rudolf Steiner: Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason for
                > it.
                > > For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you, the fog
                > > itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit
                > > afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
                > > Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been
                > > deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life will
                > > often creep in that one cannot foresee.
                > >
                > > Cheers,
                > >
                > > Tarjei
                > >
                >
              • elfuncle
                ... Forget Joe, gimme Sarah Palin as clairvoyant. Down in the Deep Dump (where they can t take a dump), Diana and her ilk were busy a little while back to
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Thomas Smith" <eltrigal78@...> wrote:

                  > Now, let's say that Joe the Plumber is clairvoyant.

                  Forget Joe, gimme Sarah Palin as clairvoyant. Down in the Deep Dump (where they can't take a dump), Diana and her ilk were busy a little while back to throw Sarah Palin into this camp like a hand grenade -- whether it was the AT in particular or anthros in general I don't remember -- but their point was that Palin and anthros have lots and lots in common -- religiously, politically, u name it.

                  So Sarah's claim to clairvoyance would be right down their alley, because I bet some reputable anthro-mags would be gullible enough to do huge features on her if she had a few chats with Jesus the Hawkish Generallissimo.



                  Is Sarah Palin Being Christened as De Facto Leader of the GOP? 

                  Posted by Bob Cesca, Huffington Post at 7:26 AM on December 4, 2008.

                  Sarah Palin is a walking, talking psychobomb -- and she's on the verge of becoming the face of the Republican party.

                  This is a must read, but before you get there, here's another little something from my muse:


                  Melody: Roll Over Beethoven by Chuck Berry


                  Roll Over Joe Plumber


                  I'm gonna write a little letter,
                  gonna mail it to my local Neocon.
                  Yeah an' it's a jumpin' little lady
                  who's about to turn us all on.
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber, I gotta se somethin' that's fun..

                  You know, my temperature's risin'
                  The Republicans have blown their fuse.
                  My gun's gett'n oiled
                  and my Jesus keeps a-singin' the blues.
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber and tell Ronald Reagan the news.

                  I got the shoot'n pneumonia,
                  I need my ammo now right away.
                  I caught the rollin' automatic
                  sittin' down at a NRA.
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber they're blasting the lefties away.

                  Well, if you feelin' like a fast hit it
                  go vote for Palin, then explode and blast it.
                  Shout for Jesus and wave that flag high
                  a trifle further and reel and rock with it,
                  roll it over,
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber, dig these invasions and wars.

                  Well, early in the mornin' I'm a-givin' you a warnin'
                  don't you step on my brand new gun.
                  Hey diddle diddle, I am playin' my fiddle,
                  ain't got nothin' but fun.
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber and tell Ronald Reagan it's done.

                  You know she wiggles like a glow worm,
                  dance like a spinnin' top.
                  She got a crazy partner,
                  Ya oughta see 'em reel and rock.
                  Long as she got a vote the shootin' wont never stop.

                  Roll Over Joe Plumber,
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber,
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber,
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber,
                  Roll Over Joe Plumber, dig these blasts, she's on top.

                  Cheers,

                  Tarjei
                • dottie zold
                  But what is not recognized here is the idea of research and validation one to the other, not a wanting to be the speaker to these things rather a
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    But what is not recognized here is the idea of 'research' and validation one to the other, not a 'wanting to be the speaker to these things' rather a researcher. For that people need to not be so frieken afraid they are going to be judged. If they are in it for goodwilled research and not trying to be recognized by others, it bodes well, if they are doing it so they can then have everyone follow their words and to be thought of as an initiate then it does not bode well.
                     
                    I don't believe Steiner set out a plan of initiation thinking that others would be afraid to speak to one another about their findings and trials and errors. This is spiritual research, just like science, where people work together and share their experiences in a way that serves.
                     
                    Again, it all matters on the 'why' you share a thing.
                     
                    All good things,
                    Dottie

                    --- On Sun, 12/7/08, Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...> wrote:
                    From: Frank Thomas Smith <eltrigal78@...>
                    Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Anthroposphical spiritual fruits
                    To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 7:43 AM

                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12"
                    <ottmar12@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > 
                    >   Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments.
                    > 
                    > 
                    > 
                    > Tarjei:
                    > 
                    > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute certainty
                    > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public is
                    > really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline of
                    > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline
                    > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and
                    > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
                    > error....
                    > 
                    > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her
                    > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without
                    > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found that I
                    > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims
                    > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they
                    haven't
                    > done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings and
                    > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
                    > 
                    > 
                    > 
                    > Ottmar: I agree 100 per cent.   Repeat it as often as you can.
                    > 
                    
                    I think there is another factor involved here. Steiner was a brilliant
                    intellectual (See "Der Andere Rudolf Steiner" for what his
                    contemporaries thought of him before anthroposophy), a warm-hearted
                    individual, according to some, a spellbinding speaker and with a
                    charisma to out-wrestle Obama. Now, let's say that Joe the Plumber is
                    clairvoyant. He'd be flushed down the toilet. What I mean to ssay is
                    that any individual who claims clairvoyance or initiation must first
                    be taken very seriously in relation to other aspects first (as Steiner
                    says below). Someting similar is true for the arts. Picasso got away
                    with much of his cubist and other non-traditional work because it was
                    known that he was a damn god painter traditionally as well.
                    Frank     
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    > > http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
                    > > <%20http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html>
                    > >
                    > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must have
                    > > known even in those early years, you were so completely silent about
                    > > occult matters until your fortieth year?
                    > >
                    > > Rudolf Steiner: I had to make a certain position for myself in the
                    > world
                    > > first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
                    > earlier
                    > > work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And, moreover,
                    I
                    > > had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point where
                    I
                    > > could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. That
                    > > was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs
                    courage
                    > > to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this
                    > courage.
                    > >
                    > > In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue
                    to
                    > shut
                    > > up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of which
                    > you
                    > > speak:
                    > >
                    > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your
                    > > investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
                    > > Rudolf Steiner: I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure
                    of.
                    > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny had to
                    > > correct your first impressions and results of research?
                    > > Rudolf Steiner: Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason for
                    > it.
                    > > For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you, the
                    fog
                    > > itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
                    > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit
                    > > afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
                    > > Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been
                    > > deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life will
                    > > often creep in that one cannot foresee.
                    > >
                    > > Cheers,
                    > >
                    > > Tarjei
                    > >
                    >
                    
                    
                    
                    ------------------------------------
                    
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                    
                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
                    
                    <*> Your email settings:
                        Individual Email | Traditional
                    
                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join
                        (Yahoo! ID required)
                    
                    <*> To change settings via email:
                        mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-digest@yahoogroups.com 
                        mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                    
                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    
                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    
                    

                  • holderlin66
                    At issue, as wisdom goes, not that much wisdom is granted to anyone seeking to grasp why the temptation of the Apple has been finally handed down to us from
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment


                      At issue, as wisdom goes, not that much wisdom is granted to anyone seeking to grasp why the temptation of the Apple has been finally handed down to us from pomegranate to bannana, finally we may have settled on the Apple for very good reason.  Ah but looking for the reason that we think in a Michael Way, as Frank's Michael Letters have recently declared, that Michael thinks in the gaps.  Michael thinking doesn't imply that it is all handed to us.  We stand before a human being and see a Consciousness Soul Medical conglomeration.  It is Michael thinking to fill in the gaps in the spiritual observations so that, as our Angels demand and in The Angels Work in the Astral Body of Man, we look and understand and comprehend the strange gaps that apply to how we observe the human world or the natural world and understand the gaps.   

                      The gaps in the etheric and the Logos forces in plants and the particular system of plant, the virtue, the structure and the form, the fruit, the blossom, as well as nutritional aspects, there is before us a Logos Ordered, lawful Light Being form that is nourished and grows with specific laws that are part of the order of how Light works.  Light is digested and the Logos has created manifold forms and treasures that digest and reveal miracles of the Logos itself laced in and woven into form.  Now here we are approaching the gaps in Michael Thinking.  It was very interesting to understand how Goethe took the sensitive or sentient soul experiences and wove them, as Steiner very clearly indicated, wove sentient or sensitive soul insights into the Consciousness Soul.  But we hardly even Gemut the comprehension of real Sentient Soul forces and leanings nor Intellectual Soul systems, both good and not so good, or how the integration and Michael gaps are filled in the Consciousness Soul cohesion, where Spirit and Matter reveal a Logos lawful world.

                      So applied to the Apple, we are forced by the wisdom of the world to understand the STAR form inside the Apple.  We are forced to observe, firstly as a dead idea, an Apple and a Star inside the Apple.  We are forced to....who is forced to, anyone who wishes to grasp and approach Michael at all is required to understand the gaps, where Michael isn't coming down to dirty his laundry in every idiotic Idiocracy of disconnected nonsense that passes as hardly stewed, hardly grasped, dumbed down donkey ass materialism, which are too lazy and clever to make an effort to fill in the gaps and bridge themselves to Michael.  Why, Oh heavens why would we use Mistletoe grown off Apple Trees for Female Breast cancer remedies?  Well if you are unable to fill in the gaps, the Apple appears to by a symbol of Eve and the serpent.  Blah, Blah, Blah, blah.

                      But when we take Venus and Star of retrograde Venus movements and apply it as well to the Apple, we come upon the female forces of Venus, and certainly we are in the world of Venus as Aphrodite, and Venus as Aphrodite and Mars and their Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars, nonsense, but we come upon Troy and Helen and the choice of huanity to take the path of Aphrodite and Love.   But here we come back to Eve and we look up to the stars and observe how Venus moves in the heavens and we come back to Earth and observe how the Tiny Star form is written in the Apple.  We observe that for Breast Cancer, female Breast Cancer, tinctures of Mistletoe, and the mistletoe itself is grown over and parasitically attached to Apple juices and apple trees Life forces to gain the strength and formative Logos forces, again, formative Logos forces that we don't see, but are in the Michael Thinking gaps in our intellects.

                      Borrowing the formative forces of certain plants, remedies and enhancing them, potentizing them, but still, all the entire Baldar and Hodar myths, are somewhat sentient soul, but the Science of Iscador or some such plant herb homeopathy becomes medical Michael Science of the Consciousness Soul, when real thinking, real Consciousness Soul Thinking absorbs the mighty Logos Laws and uses them as Science.   So once more we come back to the imprinting of the retrograde Star loops that Venus makes, and that Venus and the days of Venus rise and fall, moving through the stars also reveals the unfolding time frame of pregnancy...to create a little star form in the womb.

                      How distressing that we fail to fill in the gaps that observation presents us with and approach Michael Thinking.  You may read all the Michael Letters you want, and we suppose that each of us picks up on this or that that interests them.  So be it!  But when we whine and complain about Michael and Steiner, and how Steiner helped us fill in the gaps and how Goethe made treasure of the sentient soul reappear in the Consciousness Soul in his great works, we stand like little goofs before real Spiritual problems.  Our real spiritual problems are our lack of ability to think in the gaps, build the our bridge to Michael, make solid the way, we would have no choice but to understand the divine in everything, once we solidly get a grasp over what is deliberately left out of every consideration.  And the Michael Letters that so appear before us currently, shout this to the housetops and to ears that fail to hear and eyes that fail to see.  Steiner lays it down clearly, that there is a failure and a deliberate leaving out the obvious gaps, when someone like myself says, look at the 12 cranial nerves as an entire sucked into the system, thinking, astral and star navigation field of forces, miniature...for human karmic and destiny navigation, and I compare or Tom compares and we compare the innerds of the implosion device the Dodecahedron in the nuclear bomb for the release of raw un-Logos Light, Light that no plant or etheric beings can digest without  terrible, terrible catastrophe, and realize, the human brain is such a pineal active interior light source but held in healthy form and Logos Miracle that each human being contains their own piece of the Stars.... Why then we speak with our fellow human beings and hear their thoughts. 

                      We see what Goethe tried to do in tranforming his sentient imaginations into Consciousness Soul imaginations and we see what Steiner did with his Medical and Educational insights to lift the gap points up to Michael woven thought forces that the Spiritual World can then take hold of and begin to down link and we can up link and begin an actual intimate initiation dialogue to return insights that are part of our own Starry Nature.

                      0 0

                    • elfuncle
                      ... validation one to the other, not a wanting to be the speaker to these things rather a researcher. For that people need to not be so frieken afraid they
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, dottie zold <dottie_z@...> wrote:

                        > But what is not recognized here is the idea of 'research' and validation one to the other, not a 'wanting to be the speaker to these things' rather a researcher. For that people need to not be so frieken afraid they are going to be judged.

                        Exactly. What I was getting at was the tendency for people making eccentric and unsubstantiated claims in public, to freak out or be deeply hurt at the slightest sign of judgement, criticism, or disbelief.

                        If they are in it for goodwilled research and not trying to be recognized by others, it bodes well, if they are doing it so they can then have everyone follow their words and to be thought of as an initiate then it does not bode well.

                        The problem arises when someone disagrees with statements that are not presented as personal opinions but instead, authoritative insight, because such disagreement is seen as a discrediting of the vulnerable platform of seership the person is trying to present, oftentimes indirectly, implied, rather than straightforward and bold. (The latter, of course, is a rarity and the most audacious.)

                        > I don't believe Steiner set out a plan of initiation thinking that others would be afraid to speak to one another about their findings and trials and errors.

                        There is a huge difference between sharing intimacies with trusted friends -- "speak to one another" as you put it -- and announcing such intimacies in public forums (like this group), on websites, in blogs, or in media (magazines, newpapers, radio, TV etc.), or in public speeches and lectures. In other words, if one writes something here, in a public forum with open archives, one should not forget that one is in fact publishing it on the World Wide Web. And this means that one may be quoted anywhere else on the web, or in the media for that matter, by critics, skeptics, fundamentalists, and other hostile groups.

                        This is why the right to internet anonymity is important, of course, because sometimes hostilities can get out of hand and become threats and full exposure, especially in the United States. I think, however, that an anonymous public clairvoyant would look rather odd, perhaps even bizarre. which shows once again that someone deciding to step out in public and make such announcements to millions if not billions of people, should be prepared to do so with their full identities and be able to shrug off any negative feedback.

                        And although sharing intimacies with one's trusted friends and loved ones definitely has its merits -- and this can also be done online through closed, private e-groups -- there is also a lot of power in the discipline of total, absolute silence; it's a self-discipline that also helps one to keep one's tongue (or one's keyboard) with regard to gossip, idle talk and things like that.

                        I know I'm not a good example for the latter, with all my fun and poetry and hole-pokings and entertainment and so on, but the discipline I'm talking about here is primarily concerned with intimacies. We usually associate this word with private relationships in the physical world, sexual relations and so on, but private spiritual matters are the most intimate of all, and if we betray the higher powers by blabbering publicly about everything that pops into our minds, we have a very, very long way to go before the Threshold is opened.

                        Cheers,

                        Tarjei
                      • dottie zold
                        I want to share that in Kaballah class the first thing the Rabbi does is split the apple and show the star within, exactly the same on both sides. However,
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I want to share that in Kaballah class the first thing the Rabbi does is split the apple and show the star within, exactly the same on both sides. However, after thinking what Tarjei friend was bringing with the bananna I found myself considering myself as the tree. And that was interesting. And then I considered what is said about 'popping the cherry' pardon the crudeness of such an expression I am not looking at it in that manner, however, if we look at what is sought after regarding 'virginity' although usually noted from a physical point of view, I think we can consider the fruit within the human being as well.
                           
                          I have been following the stars this last year or so. And I have realized, after buying a kids book on the cosmos, about the sun and the moon and how they all work with one another and in which manner, I realized that I had to position myself as the center of the Earth in order to understand how this all works. Abstractism in my thinking does not help it really hindres if I do not seek the experience of it 1) through thinking and 2) through understanding. And so I can better understand how the planets and the stars all work on me as they do the Being of the Earth. There is a reason this Being is called Mother Earth it is not for nothing.
                           
                          Therefore when rolling my eyes at Tarjei's bananna I realized that the fruit is something different in both the apple and then that which sits within. Theosophy, the book, is really helpful in placing ourselves from our past and into our future experiences within this physical worldly being. And of course the Tree does matter, this Tree has great significance and there is a reason it is noted as the Sycamore Fig. I remember looking at this last year here on list and it has been sitting with me and now as I seek to understand the Beginnings in order to understand the future, I remembered how it always seemed to me that the head of the trees were in the ground and their feet springing upward. Just about every tree that feels to be a truth, yet with the Palm tree, no.
                           
                          All good things,
                          Dottie

                          --- On Sun, 12/7/08, holderlin66 <holderlin66@...> wrote:
                          From: holderlin66 <holderlin66@...>
                          Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Anthroposphical spiritual fruits
                          To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 9:57 AM


                          At issue, as wisdom goes, not that much wisdom is granted to anyone seeking to grasp why the temptation of the Apple has been finally handed down to us from pomegranate to bannana, finally we may have settled on the Apple for very good reason.  Ah but looking for the reason that we think in a Michael Way, as Frank's Michael Letters have recently declared, that Michael thinks in the gaps.  Michael thinking doesn't imply that it is all handed to us.  We stand before a human being and see a Consciousness Soul Medical conglomeration.  It is Michael thinking to fill in the gaps in the spiritual observations so that, as our Angels demand and in The Angels Work in the Astral Body of Man, we look and understand and comprehend the strange gaps that apply to how we observe the human world or the natural world and understand the gaps.   
                          The gaps in the etheric and the Logos forces in plants and the particular system of plant, the virtue, the structure and the form, the fruit, the blossom, as well as nutritional aspects, there is before us a Logos Ordered, lawful Light Being form that is nourished and grows with specific laws that are part of the order of how Light works.  Light is digested and the Logos has created manifold forms and treasures that digest and reveal miracles of the Logos itself laced in and woven into form.  Now here we are approaching the gaps in Michael Thinking.  It was very interesting to understand how Goethe took the sensitive or sentient soul experiences and wove them, as Steiner very clearly indicated, wove sentient or sensitive soul insights into the Consciousness Soul.  But we hardly even Gemut the comprehension of real Sentient Soul forces and leanings nor Intellectual Soul systems, both good and not so good, or how the integration and Michael gaps are filled in the Consciousness Soul cohesion, where Spirit and Matter reveal a Logos lawful world.
                          So applied to the Apple, we are forced by the wisdom of the world to understand the STAR form inside the Apple.  We are forced to observe, firstly as a dead idea, an Apple and a Star inside the Apple.  We are forced to....who is forced to, anyone who wishes to grasp and approach Michael at all is required to understand the gaps, where Michael isn't coming down to dirty his laundry in every idiotic Idiocracy of disconnected nonsense that passes as hardly stewed, hardly grasped, dumbed down donkey ass materialism, which are too lazy and clever to make an effort to fill in the gaps and bridge themselves to Michael.  Why, Oh heavens why would we use Mistletoe grown off Apple Trees for Female Breast cancer remedies?  Well if you are unable to fill in the gaps, the Apple appears to by a symbol of Eve and the serpent.  Blah, Blah, Blah, blah.
                          But when we take Venus and Star of retrograde Venus movements and apply it as well to the Apple, we come upon the female forces of Venus, and certainly we are in the world of Venus as Aphrodite, and Venus as Aphrodite and Mars and their Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars, nonsense, but we come upon Troy and Helen and the choice of huanity to take the path of Aphrodite and Love.   But here we come back to Eve and we look up to the stars and observe how Venus moves in the heavens and we come back to Earth and observe how the Tiny Star form is written in the Apple.  We observe that for Breast Cancer, female Breast Cancer, tinctures of Mistletoe, and the mistletoe itself is grown over and parasitically attached to Apple juices and apple trees Life forces to gain the strength and formative Logos forces, again, formative Logos forces that we don't see, but are in the Michael Thinking gaps in our intellects.
                          Borrowing the formative forces of certain plants, remedies and enhancing them, potentizing them, but still, all the entire Baldar and Hodar myths, are somewhat sentient soul, but the Science of Iscador or some such plant herb homeopathy becomes medical Michael Science of the Consciousness Soul, when real thinking, real Consciousness Soul Thinking absorbs the mighty Logos Laws and uses them as Science.   So once more we come back to the imprinting of the retrograde Star loops that Venus makes, and that Venus and the days of Venus rise and fall, moving through the stars also reveals the unfolding time frame of pregnancy...to create a little star form in the womb.
                          How distressing that we fail to fill in the gaps that observation presents us with and approach Michael Thinking.  You may read all the Michael Letters you want, and we suppose that each of us picks up on this or that that interests them.  So be it!  But when we whine and complain about Michael and Steiner, and how Steiner helped us fill in the gaps and how Goethe made treasure of the sentient soul reappear in the Consciousness Soul in his great works, we stand like little goofs before real Spiritual problems.  Our real spiritual problems are our lack of ability to think in the gaps, build the our bridge to Michael, make solid the way, we would have no choice but to understand the divine in everything, once we solidly get a grasp over what is deliberately left out of every consideration.  And the Michael Letters that so appear before us currently, shout this to the housetops and to ears that fail to hear and eyes that fail to see.  Steiner lays it down clearly, that there is a failure and a deliberate leaving out the obvious gaps, when someone like myself says, look at the 12 cranial nerves as an entire sucked into the system, thinking, astral and star navigation field of forces, miniature...for human karmic and destiny navigation, and I compare or Tom compares and we compare the innerds of the implosion device the Dodecahedron in the nuclear bomb for the release of raw un-Logos Light, Light that no plant or etheric beings can digest without  terrible, terrible catastrophe, and realize, the human brain is such a pineal active interior light source but held in healthy form and Logos Miracle that each human being contains their own piece of the Stars.... Why then we speak with our fellow human beings and hear their thoughts. 
                          We see what Goethe tried to do in tranforming his sentient imaginations into Consciousness Soul imaginations and we see what Steiner did with his Medical and Educational insights to lift the gap points up to Michael woven thought forces that the Spiritual World can then take hold of and begin to down link and we can up link and begin an actual intimate initiation dialogue to return insights that are part of our own Starry Nature.
                          0 0

                        • dottie zold
                          Tarjei: The problem arises when someone disagrees with statements that are not presented as personal opinions but instead, authoritative insight, because such
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tarjei:
                            The problem arises when someone disagrees with statements that are not presented as personal opinions but instead, authoritative insight, because such disagreement is seen as a discrediting of the vulnerable platform of seership the person is trying to present, oftentimes indirectly, implied, rather than straightforward and bold. (The latter, of course, is a rarity and the most audacious.)
                             
                            Dottie: I agree that is a really big problem. That is why the 'why' is so important. Why are you sharing a thing, why do you want to know a past biography, or someone elses etc. The why of a thing is incredibly important. And I think the reason one takes such umbrage at being questioned is because they are full of themselves and their opinion. I also though also recognize from personal experience people who disagree with something and instead of questioning from goodwill they try to prove their point and then belittle the other for being shown a way that what they are saying might not be the fullon truth, that others might have a different experience.
                            Also I have heard often from others that they are concerned about what they put forth as it will be judged. Well, if you are  not in it for the learning then you would be right to not want to be judged or looked at, however if you are in it for the learning and the research then you would be open to the idea that maybe what you thought is not the end all be all. I have been pummelled over and over and never took it personally as I was not in it for me, I am in it for the truth, I am in it to learn.
                             
                            Dottie:
                            > I don't believe Steiner set out a plan of initiation thinking that others would be afraid to speak to one another about their findings and trials and errors.
                            Tarjei:
                            There is a huge difference between sharing intimacies with trusted friends -- "speak to one another" as you put it -- and announcing such intimacies in public forums (like this group), on websites, in blogs, or in media (magazines, newpapers, radio, TV etc.), or in public speeches and lectures.
                             
                            Dottie: Well, Taz, I understand that point of view and it is a good one. However I think Ahriman and Lucifer have had a good time with anthros hiding their light under the bushes, hell, we are their partners in this. It is why we are constantly behind the 8 ball on issues that the world is coming to when we should, by Rudolf Steiners incredible offerings to the world. We need to be brave, steadfast and have courage in the face of this stigmatizing that goes on in the circles of anthros. I hear this santimonious thing, as if humble, coming from some quarters on this list and it is a false piety. That's how I see it and it is a lie. Not that the person is lying however the piety is false and it shows a huge ego just growling to make its point known over and over yet not directly speaking to the one who is bringing up the questions. It's false piety.
                             
                            Taz:
                            In other words, if one writes something here, in a public forum with open archives, one should not forget that one is in fact publishing it on the World Wide Web. And this means that one may be quoted anywhere else on the web, or in the media for that matter, by critics, skeptics, fundamentalists, and other hostile groups.
                            Dottie: I get that. But we are called to be courageous at this time Taz. I mean, man, Sordat and those cats they love that we hide our light, they love that we are so afraid to be judged or to have our words here and there. Our Teacher's words are all over the place and used in all kinds of manners, the least we can do is to speak honorabley to the best of our ability and trust the higher beings are finding ways for us to validate or push forth our strivings to understand.
                             
                            Taz:
                            This is why the right to internet anonymity is important, of course, because sometimes hostilities can get out of hand and become threats and full exposure, especially in the United States. I think, however, that an anonymous public clairvoyant would look rather odd, perhaps even bizarre. which shows once again that someone deciding to step out in public and make such announcements to millions if not billions of people, should be prepared to do so with their full identities and be able to shrug off any negative feedback.
                            Dottie: There are threats and again people just do not realize that thoughts are like bullets as Rudolf Steiner has shared. They are. However one has to also learn to turn the poison into medicine. So if we rightly bring ourselves to the table and are looking to research with others in goodwill and to share our disagreements with one another in full brotherly love and care, then we can move further along in this work. To keep it hidden, and let me tell you, its not just on the internet but in groups and circles and meetings that these things are kept to oneself. How awful. And when one does want to share some insight they have to couch it and walk on eggshells. It's awful for one working in good will because that one is not trying to impose their thoughts or will on another, rather they are looking for others to help further their own thinking and learning.
                             
                            Tarjei:
                            And although sharing intimacies with one's trusted friends and loved ones definitely has its merits -- and this can also be done online through closed, private e-groups -- there is also a lot of power in the discipline of total, absolute silence; it's a self-discipline that also helps one to keep one's tongue (or one's keyboard) with regard to gossip, idle talk and things like that.
                            Dottie: There is a lot of power and then again there is also alot of harm in that one never does share out of a feeling of being wrong or whathaveyou, or being judged etc. When one is doing research it is good to share. We're not looking for one to come down with pronouncments such as 'well, Rudolf Steiner does not want to be called Rudolf Steiner anymore'.   I mean people dictating to others is awful and is not productive in any case towards freedom. Researching and sharing ones thoughts is a good thing. I remember the first time I heard someone speaking about elemental beings as an experience I just stood there with my mouth on the floor. It was so shocking and it was such a relief as this is a hardcore anthro who just put it out there in normal conversation. Shocking. And it wasn't a new agey thing it was really out of the work as this is a natural part of our work, these beings come into being right before our eyes for some. And it's funny. And one just observes and considers things you know. It's not about saying 'oh so and so is clairoyvoyant because they can see elementals, rather it is a natural state for some that comes out of the work. And for others it is that they are sensitives. It matters how it is shared and again the whys'.
                             
                            Tarjei:
                            I know I'm not a good example for the latter, with all my fun and poetry and hole-pokings and entertainment and so on, but the discipline I'm talking about here is primarily concerned with intimacies. We usually associate this word with private relationships in the physical world, sexual relations and so on, but private spiritual matters are the most intimate of all, and if we betray the higher powers by blabbering publicly about everything that pops into our minds, we have a very, very long way to go before the Threshold is opened.
                            Dottie: Spiritual Science is a science Tarjei. I'm not talking about personal relationships and so forth. We are not betraying the higher powers Taz when we reasearch and seek others who are as well. We are not. Again, we have got to stop hiding the light as the world needs thoughts that reach the Light of Day, they need them, we need them, these are our sustanance as we move along this path. It's horrible to have so many people binded in the manner they are. Yet there has been no way of getting past those who are in sympathies and antipathies, and this is the issue with spiritual scientific research, one has to be not attached to their own findings. And its not in our human nature it seems to be so.
                             
                            All good things,
                            Dottie
                            Cheers,

                            Tarjei

                          • val2160
                            ... be ... – ... [Frankenstein]
                            Message 13 of 14 , Dec 7, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "pj.geary" <isis.sophia@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > As a newcomer here, I offer the following:
                              >
                              >
                              > About souls deciding to reincarnate relatively quickly – there can be
                              > some technical difficulties around that for the incarnating
                              > individual. If we focus on the personal sacrifice and courage that is
                              > required to perform such an act, we may glimpse the level of love and
                              > commitment to the well being of all the earth and her many souls. It
                              > is clearly a step towards the service of a bodhisattva.
                              >
                              > Individuals struggling alone to share their spiritual investigations
                              > and the memories of other lifetimes merit a safe circle in which to
                              > practice such efforts. This was the problem RS faced in his lifetime –
                              > others lacked courage and commitment. So he took up alone the
                              > communication of knowledge. The degree of ridicule one experiences
                              > has more to do with one's fear of ridicule which then manifests than
                              > the opposing forces. One can witness the nightmare yet be part of
                              > something new that is resonant with safety. No one vision, nor the
                              > visions of any one individual, are entirely correct. Reality is
                              > constantly reinventing itself through the conscious awareness of all.
                              >
                              > As the Divine Feminine returns to us and reveals her wonders, she
                              > needs our assistance to manifest fully in the world. Turning to Her
                              > for guidance can provide the way. She will bring the balance, ease
                              > the burden of Christ and eventually heal those opposing forces who
                              > are so painful to us all in their denial of the power of love. When
                              > we stand for Her in the world, we discover Christ at our side.
                              >
                              > RS stated that if he could change the name `anthroposophy' every day,
                              > that he would. The world is remarkably resonant with much of the
                              > knowledge of anthroposophy, the relationship with the being of
                              > anthroposophy, but it is not always called by that name. The Divine
                              > has many names, many faces. It is the coming together of those
                              > diverse names that will make the difference someday, not the vision
                              > or opinions of any individual or group. If we ask Sophia to reveal
                              > herself to us in the world, she generates a luminescence in many
                              > places, in many names. She reveals the fearlessness of love and that
                              > lights our way.
                              >
                              > Patricia

                              Frankenstein



                            • dottie zold
                              Dear Patricia, welcome to the group. I want to say that I appreciate your offerings and agree there is value in seeing safety working in initimate groups. I
                              Message 14 of 14 , Dec 9, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Patricia, welcome to the group. I want to say that I appreciate your offerings and agree there is value in seeing safety working in initimate groups. I want to say that in seeing the value in this I also so a downside when it doesn't find the light of day in other groups and to the Society as a whole. And I think that is why we have other groups and people wanting to share and to find others. Many times these are not in our local branches and we are actually meeting those on the web who do have similar experiences that one has not encountered in their face to face life or in groups. I find no value if it stays within a small group of intimate friends instead of opening it up for the whole. But that is the Manes in me. I am not concerned with  myself but others who might be also not encountering others who might be able to shed light on a thing out of experience.
                                 
                                For example, there is only one person that has confirmed this change in the manner that I had experienced at 31. He said 'it was a series of events.' And he would be right. Now, I have asked that question in a variety of ways and I have not encountered one who could confirm that. They could speak to other things but not that. They could relate what Rudolf Steiner shares but not the experience itself.
                                 
                                In the same manner I encountered Rudolf Steiner in a dream. He led me through a house with many rooms, to the ocean, where I was then freed from the troubles, for he had shown me the way. It wasn't until many years later that I could be clear about this dream as nobody else has spoken to it. I did find here on line one to confirm it as Rudolf Steiner was dressed in the same english suit as the one appearing in my dream.
                                 
                                Now, I have also experienced the Light Body of Christ, also known as the 'Phantom Body of Christ'. And although it was mentioned years ago by one on this list that they had a friend who encountered the Christ in the etheric he did not share the insight of the friend. When I was trying to consider this experience of the other to mine I could not. I wondered, 'did He speak' for how the friend here on line conveyed it it was so much more magificant than mine and I thought 'well, maybe there is something wrong with me that I could not 'hear' Him. For I thought the way it was conveyed, although only the words 'my friend experienced this deeply felt', meant that He had spoken and conveyed some message'. I had not had a message, although the first Body of Lights resounded with the words 'I come in peace'. But no message. And so I wondered if I was deaf in the spiritual world way.
                                 
                                Now, there is one on list  who has this experience of the Christ after a series of events. It was known to me that he has and I am aware of one other who has not shared it with me or the list outright, but I know it to be true as one can read/hear it in the words of others, even when they don't say it explicitley. And I asked him to share it and I guess he doesn't trust me or thinks it not good to share it on line. Well, I just want to know if he heard Him speak. That's all. I want to know if he then experienced Him a few times later and if he had a short view of the Akashic records and if they were in color.
                                 
                                There is a difference from when one experiences this Phantom body which I will from now on call the Light Body, and when one experiences a feeling of this out of ones life experiences. People say there is not a difference as they are all equal and we all have this experience but I have to say I can tell those who have had the experienced the Light Body and those who have had the experience of the Love of Christ through some personal experience or contemplation.
                                 
                                So, this keeping quiet and so forth in circles when the media is about to pounce on this just as we come to it, does not serve I think. I think its important that Anthros recognize that this is a mainstream work in that it is spirit in the world. Those who have these experiences and can speak to them, should. I am not one who can speak to this experience from an anthroposophical point of view because it is not my language. However these others can. And they should have courage to do so. For I kid you not we will be once again having Ahriman lead the way into such deep places with his materialistic thinking that skews the whole matter.
                                 
                                Regarding the comment I hear often 'Rudolf Steiner said he wished the name anthroposophy would change every day' I'd like to know if you or anyone here has where this quote can be found. Just as we have Theosophy, Philosophy, we now have Anthroposophy. Each representing a changing of the guards so to speak. If we do not call Michael, by another name, Christ by another name, you by another name, myself by another name, why would we change Anthroposophia's name?
                                 
                                It is understood that the Sophia and also I would imagine Anthrosposophian qualities in other cultures, this does not mean we should change the name of the Being we know as Anthroposophia. Can we recognize her in other cultures, well I would hope so. I would hope there would be one, kinda like what Bradford offered on the Native path, although I was not able to make time to fully contemplate it, who could show where these meet. That would be wonderful. It is also said that Rudolf Steiner shared that 'the name is the activity of the Being'. So in that we have the Being Anthroposophia.
                                 
                                All good things and thanks for your sharings,
                                Dottie

                                --- On Sun, 12/7/08, pj.geary <isis.sophia@...> wrote:
                                From: pj.geary <isis.sophia@...>
                                Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Anthroposphical spiritual fruits
                                To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Sunday, December 7, 2008, 6:47 AM

                                As a newcomer here, I offer the following:
                                
                                
                                About souls deciding to reincarnate relatively quickly – there can be 
                                some technical difficulties around that for the incarnating 
                                individual. If we focus on the personal sacrifice and courage that is 
                                required to perform such an act, we may glimpse the level of love and 
                                commitment to the well being of all the earth and her many souls. It 
                                is clearly a step towards the service of a bodhisattva. 
                                
                                Individuals struggling alone to share their spiritual investigations 
                                and the memories of other lifetimes merit a safe circle in which to 
                                practice such efforts. This was the problem RS faced in his lifetime –
                                 others lacked courage and commitment. So he took up alone the 
                                communication of knowledge. The degree of ridicule one experiences 
                                has more to do with one's fear of ridicule which then manifests than 
                                the opposing forces. One can witness the nightmare yet be part of 
                                something new that is resonant with safety. No one vision, nor the 
                                visions of any one individual, are entirely correct. Reality is 
                                constantly reinventing itself through the conscious awareness of all. 
                                
                                As the Divine Feminine returns to us and reveals her wonders, she 
                                needs our assistance to manifest fully in the world. Turning to Her 
                                for guidance can provide the way. She will bring the balance, ease 
                                the burden of Christ and eventually heal those opposing forces who 
                                are so painful to us all in their denial of the power of love. When 
                                we stand for Her in the world, we discover Christ at our side.
                                
                                RS stated that if he could change the name `anthroposophy' every day, 
                                that he would. The world is remarkably resonant with much of the 
                                knowledge of anthroposophy, the relationship with the being of 
                                anthroposophy, but it is not always called by that name. The Divine 
                                has many names, many faces. It is the coming together of those 
                                diverse names that will make the difference someday, not the vision 
                                or opinions of any individual or group. If we ask Sophia to reveal 
                                herself to us in the world, she generates a luminescence in many 
                                places, in many names. She reveals the fearlessness of love and that 
                                lights our way. 
                                
                                Patricia
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12" 
                                <ottmar12@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > 
                                >   Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments.
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > Tarjei:
                                > 
                                > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute 
                                certainty
                                > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the public 
                                is
                                > really something that the public needs to know. The very discipline 
                                of
                                > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding discipline
                                > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, and
                                > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
                                > error....
                                > 
                                > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or her
                                > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief without
                                > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found 
                                that I
                                > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual claims
                                > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they 
                                haven't
                                > done their basic work on personal character and control of feelings 
                                and
                                > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > Ottmar: I agree 100 per cent.   Repeat it as often as you can.
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > On Yonassam Gershom: He gave this answer to a friend in Amsterdam, I
                                > personally wasn't present there.  I believe Y.Gershom that he has no
                                > inclination to anthroposophy  at all. I've heard that he doesn't
                                > persue the matter of people coming back from the holocaut anymore.
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > The 600-year-rule of reincarnation isn't valid in our present time,
                                > I think. There are more exceptions than the rule today.  –fast
                                > development in the world means the need to learn now, like in each 
                                new
                                > period  -see the 7 billion people today  -the aristotelian anthros
                                > coming back at the end of 20 th century (but where are the great
                                > platonici??) –and and
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > Tarjei: In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then 
                                continue
                                > to shut up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that 
                                of
                                > which you speak:
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > Ottmars answer: Okay, but…  You can never be abolutely sure, there
                                > are always some higher aspects, points of view which make your 
                                finding
                                > relative. And you have a responsibility whenever you find 
                                something. You
                                > always `pay' for knowledge, most often with `pain'
                                > (Steiner), but the story doesn't end here. Someone may need your
                                > finding or result of your search. True knowledge is a burden and not
                                > ammunition for agruements.
                                > 
                                > Greetings Ottmar
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > 
                                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle"
                                > <coolvibes@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ottmar12" 
                                ottmar12@
                                > > wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > To name some: Heide Oehms, Christiane Feuerstack, both
                                > > > Germans, Marianne Carolus is Dutch, Jostein Saether, Norwegian. 
                                (Our
                                > > > Norwegian friend on this list certainly knows him.)
                                > >
                                > > This group has always had at least a handful of Scandinavian
                                > subscribers
                                > > and contributors, so I assume you're not talking about me. I
                                > apparently
                                > > ought to know about Mr. Saether after looking him up in the 
                                wikipedia
                                > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jostein_Saether> , but I'm
                                far less
                                > > knowledgeable of cultures and things anthroposophical than some 
                                people
                                > > assume. Basically, I'm a formally uneducated simpeleton who has 
                                just
                                > > read a few books in prison and behind the wheels of taxicabs....
                                > >
                                > > > My attitude to this kind of individual and historic karma 
                                research
                                > is:
                                > > I
                                > > > don`t reject it, I can't really judge it, many things make 
                                sense to
                                > > > me. However I don't like very personal stories, I once 
                                discouraged a
                                > > > friend to publish such a kind of content in a book of his.
                                > >
                                > > The sentiments you describe here have also been my own, and they 
                                still
                                > > are....
                                > >
                                > > > Y. Gershom was
                                > > > invited several times by anthro institutions in Germany and 
                                Holland.
                                > > > (Asked why he spoke so often in front of anthros he answered 
                                openly:
                                > > > They pay best.)
                                > >
                                > > I don't necessarily buy that at surface value. Gershom is a
                                Jewish
                                > > rabbi, of the Hasidic tradit)on I think (see picture below), and 
                                and
                                > he
                                > > does not want to be suspected of being an anthroposophists, but 
                                he may
                                > > be a closet one for all we know, just like very many Catholics 
                                are.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I got an email from the guy once, probably close to a decade ago, 
                                when
                                > I
                                > > was constructing all those link pages on my website, including
                                > > Anthroposophical Links, Anarchist Links, Christian Links, Jewish
                                > Links,
                                > > etc. and I did several links to Gershom's stuff and asked him
                                some
                                > sort
                                > > of info about it. In his response, he emphasized most strongly 
                                that he
                                > > was not an anthroposophist and, I seem to recall, that he most
                                > > certainly did not want my website to suggest any such thing.
                                > >
                                > > I am amused, however, to see his remark that he speaks to anthros
                                > > because they pay best, because that reminds me of the great late 
                                actor
                                > > and movie star Robert Mitchum, who always endeavored to maintain 
                                the
                                > > public image that he was lazy and worked only for the money. He 
                                even
                                > > said that to the Norwegian press when he participated in a movie
                                > project
                                > > that could afford to pay him very little beyond his plane ticket 
                                and
                                > > hotel; Mitchum always tried to hide the fact that he loved his 
                                work so
                                > > much that he would have done it for nothing.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > Of course immediately there was opposition towards him
                                > > > on the ground of Steiner quotations, that such fast 
                                reincarnation is
                                > > > near to impossible and so on.
                                > >
                                > > One could make this opposition even stronger on the ground of
                                > Blavatsky
                                > > quotations; she gave an average of 600 years between 
                                incarnations. I
                                > > believe this resonates with Steiner at some points, but he also 
                                cites
                                > > many exceptions, and if we consider the 600 years as applying to 
                                those
                                > > living into advanced old age, or at least the three score and 
                                ten, we
                                > > are left with the possibility that very young children who die,
                                > > especially when their deaths are forced upon them from external
                                > violent
                                > > circumstances, have been deprived of their life missions and
                                > > self-development and may therefore seek re-entry as soon as 
                                possible.
                                > >
                                > > My mom once mentioned something she had read or heard from very 
                                poor
                                > > corners of the world where Hinduism or Buddhism was dominant (i.e.
                                > > cultures cognizant of reincarnation), where some families had too 
                                many
                                > > children, who were dying from diseases, thee was lots of infant
                                > > mortality and so on -- And some of these mothers were challenged 
                                by
                                > > Westerners about the sense of having so many children who did not 
                                make
                                > > it; they replied that the same souls were trying time and time 
                                again
                                > to
                                > > incarnate into their families.
                                > >
                                > > And sometime not too long ago when I held my breath and peeked 
                                into
                                > the
                                > > Abominable Abyss, I saw one of the creatures there raging against
                                > > anthroposophical skepticism towards the virtue of abortion, that
                                > someone
                                > > had said that a woman who aborts her unborn child, may be followed
                                > > around by that unborn soul. And of course the hole creatures find 
                                such
                                > > an idea utterly reprehensible and disgusting, so they sit down in 
                                a
                                > > circle holding hands and do a mantra against Rudolf Steiner,
                                > > anthroposophy, anthroposophists, and especially the Waldorf 
                                culture.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > > There are many more in the anthro scene who have personal 
                                experience
                                > > in
                                > > > karmic research, who give counselling and seminars. There are 
                                some
                                > > > other anthros who write or talk about their spiritual 
                                experiences,
                                > > what
                                > > > they found out about the historic Jesus, Judith von Halle, about
                                > > > Atlantean or Lemurian times, even about old Saturn. These 
                                people are
                                > > of
                                > > > course highly controversialy, ridiculed and fiercely fought. And
                                > there
                                > > > are many many more anthroposophs who hardly ever or never talk 
                                about
                                > > > their experiences in public or private.
                                > >
                                > > I think silence is the best rule of thumb here, until absolute
                                > certainty
                                > > is arrived at, and the subject matter to be revealed to the 
                                public is
                                > > really something that the public needs to know. The very 
                                discipline of
                                > > silence is a great contributor to the much more demanding 
                                discipline
                                > > involved in the acquisition of clairvoyance, spiritual research, 
                                and
                                > > initiation, with decades and probably also lifetimes of trial and
                                > > error....
                                > >
                                > > And anyone who meets these criteria and decides to break his or 
                                her
                                > > silence, must also be able to endure ridicule and disbelief 
                                without
                                > > becoming visibly insulted. But time and time again, I have found 
                                that
                                > I
                                > > must be utterly careful about I say to people making unusual 
                                claims
                                > > because they can't take criticism, which again proves that they
                                > haven't
                                > > done their basic work on personal character and control of 
                                feelings
                                > and
                                > > so on. One has to treat them like vulnerable children.
                                > >
                                > > http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html
                                > > <%20http://uncletaz.com/rittelmeyer/rittel02.html>
                                > >
                                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Why was it that in spite of all you must 
                                have
                                > > known even in those early years, you were so completely silent 
                                about
                                > > occult matters until your fortieth year?
                                > >
                                > > Rudolf Steiner: I had to make a certain position for myself in the
                                > world
                                > > first. People may say nowadays that my writings are mad, but my
                                > earlier
                                > > work is also there, and they cannot wholly ignore it. And, 
                                moreover, I
                                > > had to bring things to a certain clarity in myself, to a point 
                                where I
                                > > could give them form, before it was possible to talk about them. 
                                That
                                > > was not so very easy. And then - I admit it frankly - it needs 
                                courage
                                > > to speak openly about such things. I had first to acquire this
                                > courage.
                                > >
                                > > In other words, if you ain't got that courage yet, then continue 
                                to
                                > shut
                                > > up. But you also need absolutem tested certainty about that of 
                                which
                                > you
                                > > speak:
                                > >
                                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Have you really never been mistaken in your
                                > > investigations and been obliged to correct them afterwards?
                                > > Rudolf Steiner: I have never spoken of what I wasn't quite sure 
                                of.
                                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: I mean, have you not on closer scrutiny 
                                had to
                                > > correct your first impressions and results of research?
                                > > Rudolf Steiner: Yes, but then there is always an obvious reason 
                                for
                                > it.
                                > > For instance, if I meet you in a fog and do not recognise you, 
                                the fog
                                > > itself is a factor which must then be taken into account.
                                > > Friedrich Rittelmeyer: Has it never happened that you had to admit
                                > > afterwards: 'I was wrong there'?
                                > > Rudolf Steiner: Well, yes, in human beings I have sometimes been
                                > > deceived. But after all, with people, something from outer life 
                                will
                                > > often creep in that one cannot foresee.
                                > >
                                > > Cheers,
                                > >
                                > > Tarjei
                                > >
                                >
                                
                                
                                
                                ------------------------------------
                                
                                Yahoo! Groups Links
                                
                                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
                                
                                <*> Your email settings:
                                    Individual Email | Traditional
                                
                                <*> To change settings online go to:
                                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/join
                                    (Yahoo! ID required)
                                
                                <*> To change settings via email:
                                    mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-digest@yahoogroups.com 
                                    mailto:anthroposophy_tomorrow-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
                                
                                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                
                                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                
                                

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