Re: [steiner] Teresa.
- In a message dated 9/6/2004 6:10:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lilolemissy@... writes:
On Sep 6, 2004, at 12:28 PM, Mathew Morrell wrote:
Thanks LilMiss for the information. From you I gained two major
discussion points that I can use Wed. night. 1. She gained
spiritual knowledge through emotional "ecstasies" rather than through
the a more deliberate, thoughtfull path of the Conscious Mind Soul.
2. Her visions, therefore, tended to be "visual" in nature, which
would fit right into our class discussion (visual mystical
experiencies versus non-visual mystical experiences that don't rely
on the "senses"). Although, in rare instances, she did, to my
knowledge, have non-visual mystical experiences. In these she placed
greater value but could not achieve as frequently as the visual type
like the vision of the hands of Christ, or Christ's wounds, images of
angelic beings, etc.
Mathew, this is as I understand it. Steiner spoke often of the two
paths: the inner and the outer. Anthroposophy is the outer pathway, and
therefore the more difficult. It seems to me the old outdated inner
pathway may have promoted the "Bride of Christ" thought process so
often encountered, even in our times, but I'm on shaky ground here.
You're very welcome.
******* By the way, the Edgar Cayce Readings recommended William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" as a book to help lead to higher consciousness. It was made from a series of lectures James gave. In it, he reaches the same conclusion Steiner did ----he builds up to the discussion of Mysicism, but then dismisses it as worthless if all it leads to is subjective visions, i. e., the sacred heart of Jesus, his wonderful face etc. etc.
Denis Milner called Steiner's spirit-science "OBJECTIVE Mysticism" to make the point that it can use the power of higher vision to tell you a cure for cancer, etc.