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

Re: How do we know anthroposophy is true?

Expand Messages
  • robert.barnskog
    ... RB: The plant is quite easy, because in this case the percept is always available, and you can see the concepts in the percepts once you have discovered
    Message 1 of 14 , Aug 23 2:21 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      > >>It seems that you consider higher faculties to be developed gradually (we are already on the "other side"), and that is also my impression from studying anthroposophy. But is it reliable on that level?
      >
      > ******* It's the same thing as your judgment that the green thing in a pot on your desk is a plant. You could doubt that too. But you don't.


      RB: The plant is quite easy, because in this case the percept is always available, and you can see the concepts in the percepts once you have discovered them. To take an example, I read the book "The plant between sun and earth" by Adams/Whicher earlier this summer. In this book it is said that plants often have a concave form when growing upwards, instead of a convex as could be imagined. Then there were pictures that were supposed to show this. I had never thought about this before, and could not see what they meant, no matter how much I looked at the pictures. Then –all of a sudden - I understood what they meant, and I saw it not only on all the pictures but also everywhere in the garden…It´s the same with the metamorphoses of Goethe, albeit some are more difficult to check since I don`t have all the plants at hand where you can see some of the "instances worth a 1000".
      So the plants I think I can handle. After all this is precisely what I wrote about in my first message, since we see the plants here in the physical world. But how about this for example the description of the cosmic planes according to the Cosmo Conception (http://www.rosicrucian.com/images/rccen006.gif). This may very well be teached by Rosicrucian orders, even at correspondence courses. But do they really know this?
      If we go back to what we really are discussing, it would be interesting to find out what you really mean. Are you saying that clairvoyance is of different degrees, and that we can develop enough of it when studying messages from spiritual scientists, mediums, mystics etc, so that we can verify or reject it? Somewhat in the same sense as we can view our own soul (feelings etc), but that we can`t really say that we see it as clearly as outer objects, until have learned to do so via esoteric training ?


      >
      > >>For example you, yourself, seems to believe in some of Cayce´s statements, whereas you said in one of these forums that you were sceptic to the descriptions by Anne Catherine Emmerich regarding the crucifixion of Christ. Then there were other on the forum who were totally sceptic to Cayce, and then there are those who have confidence in A-C Emmerich. Robert Powell has written at least one book partly based on her visions, so he seems to have confidence in it, although I don`t know his view on the description of the crucifixion.
      >
      > ******* If you'd mention something specific from the Cayce readings or from the mystic Emmerich I could address it. I don't know that I said I was skeptical about something specific she or Powell wrote but rather that I'm always skeptical about fervently emotional religious people and their visions. I have psychic impressions but I can stand apart from them and analyze them like a scientist. That's spiritual science.
      >

      RB: No I can´t easily find the messages again, since there seems to be no search function here on Yahoo. Is there one? Anyway, it does not matter, I just wanted to illustrate that there are disagreements on spiritual statements even among anthroposphists.


      > You said it's either a choice of embarking on the path of spiritual schooling or just having blind faith. Well, nothing is stopping you from embarking on that path.


      RB: Well, how can you be so sure about this? There may be several things that stops me from doing that even if I wanted to. I think all who studies anthroposophy actively are going a path – they may intend it or not - it´s more a question of the intensity of it. For my part I was thinking of the path described by Steiner is "How to attain knowledge of…", where you are to do different exercises. According to Steiner only a part of this path was described there, so I can`t really judge it, but based on my feeling think that such thing are not to be taken lightly and I would like to have a teacher, just as when doing other potentially dangerous thing as e.g. learning to fly an airplane or learning to parachuting.

      Starman: Once you are on it, your questions begin to become different than when you were standing back and not committing. For example, the anthroposophical idea of threefold man, or the four temperaments -- -- they're just ideas that you can say maybe were right but who knows.


      RB: The threefold man is physical so this also falls under what I wrote about in my first message. In fact I think it would be impossible to work out all these polarities and correspondances that I asked about when "standing back and not committing"! I also assume that you would start to see these ideas in the way Goethe did with the plants, colors, anatomy and his other interests, although of course Goethe was a kind of master of this, at least in his own time. The four temperaments belong to the human soul, so these are also quite near at hand.



      Starman: But if you work with the anthroposophical medicine and see how the three systems interact, or you become a teacher and see the four temperaments in the children, then it's no longer something that some guy said in a book. You start to see them for yourself, and I do mean SEE. You can doubt ideas, but not direct perceptions.


      RB: No, of course you should not doubt it. It would be interesting to hear how you see the temperaments, if it is possible to do?
      The background for me starting to think about this with "things you can check and things you have to take on faith", was when I thought about if I should in some way become active in the anthroposophical society that is nearest to where I live. As I wrote, there is not an active group in Linköping where I live, but there is – in fact – one in Norrköping 40 km away, that is possible for me to go to if there are activities to take part in. I looked in their program of activities, hoping to find some kind of starting-course, that I could attend, and that other people who were new to anthroposophy could attend . Not that I was new to anthroposophy – this was earlier this year – but for lack of better ideas it could be good to take such a course to start to learn to know the people that were active there. I did not find what I was looking for, which caused me to think what it really would take to hold such a course, and what was lacking in how anthroposophy was presented to the world outside it. I came to the conclusion that what was to be presented could be a summary of what one or other authority had said, but – more importantly -what the members themselves had experienced. This applies not only to anthroposophy, but to all spiritual movements…the Theosophical movement, the Rosicrucian orders etc. If such material was compiled and made available in courses and on the web, I think the whole thing would stay alive, and attract even more people. If the members have higher experiences these can be spoken of, otherwise the physical world can perhaps be a good start. It was just a starting point I came up with, more ideas are welcome…

      // Robert B.
    • Durward Starman
      ... RB: Well, how can you be so sure about this? There may be several things that stops me from doing that even if I wanted to... *******The doctor stressed we
      Message 2 of 14 , Aug 25 9:00 PM
      • 0 Attachment
         
        > >>It seems that you consider higher faculties to be developed gradually (we are already on the "other side"), and that is also my impression from studying anthroposophy... it would be interesting to find out what you really mean. Are you saying that clairvoyance is of different degrees, and that we can develop enough of it when studying messages from spiritual scientists, mediums, mystics etc, so that we can verify or reject it? Somewhat in the same sense as we can view our own soul (feelings etc), but that we can`t really say that we see it as clearly as outer objects, until have learned to do so via esoteric training ?

        *******That's a good enough way to put it, yes.


        > You said it's either a choice of embarking on the path of spiritual schooling or just having blind faith. Well, nothing is stopping you from embarking on that path.

        RB: Well, how can you be so sure about this? There may be several things that stops me from doing that even if I wanted to...
         
        *******The doctor stressed we need devote no more than 5 minutes a day to it. Anyone can find 5 minutes a day.
         


        Starman: Once you are on it, your questions begin to become different than when you were standing back and not committing. For example, the anthroposophical idea of threefold man, or the four temperaments -- -- they're just ideas that you can say maybe were right but who knows. 
        But if you work with the anthroposophical medicine and see how the three systems interact, or you become a teacher and see the four temperaments in the children, then it's no longer something that some guy said in a book. You start to see them for yourself, and I do mean SEE. You can doubt ideas, but not direct perceptions.

        RB: No, of course you should not doubt it. It would be interesting to hear how you see the temperaments, if it is possible to do?

         
        ******* There are two ways in which you "see" them, one which can be caught by a camera and one which cannot. The sense-perceptible things are, for instance, that the fiery or choleric temperament frequently makes people very small and compact in space, while the phlegmatic temperament makes people put on weight easily. But beyond that, the reason why choleric temperaments aren't very large physically is that they have a high metabolism and are constantly burning up their food, because everything we call "fire" is present in them to a high degree. In fact, this is the starting point for really developing science towards spiritual science, tackling the etheric world instead of only the physical: there are four main ethers. (The reason why the ether was thrown out of science was the Michelson Morley experiment which disproved a single stationary ether; but it is neither single nor stationary, but rather several kinds of ethers in constant movement. I recommend starting with Guenther Wachsmuth's "The Etheric Formative Forces in Cosmos Earth and Man".) What the ancients called "Fire" anthroposophy calls the Warmth Ether, and the choleric temperament has a lot of this in the etheric body. Red hair and reddish skin are common among Caucasians, but as I said, besides what can be photographed, there is a "fieriness" in these people, which anyone with normal sense perceives--- as when you say a person is a "fiery" speaker.
         
           Fire and air, which we call the warmth ether and the Light Ether, are both masculine or outward-going, so these people are active rather than passive. Fire symbolically means the will, and choleric people have lots of it; the air temperament (which we today call the sanguine) is also active but mentally, with the constant flow of ideas, rather than so much of the will. This temperament is seen in most children, where they are active mentally but don't stay very long on any one perception or subject, instead quickly jumping to another and another, like a sun beam bouncing around a room. 
         
           Very different are the more passive water and earth temperaments. You could start by saying the masculine ones are the talkers, while the feminine ones are the listeners. Having a lot of the Chemical, Sound or Number Ether (which the ancients symbolically called Water) makes a person like to have things reverberate, echo and re-echo within one; it is contemplative rather than active, the opposite of the fiery temperament. The phlegmatics like to ponder things and return to them again and again, rather than experiencing them once and moving right on to action like the choleric. There's a special liking for cycles, for doing things at the same time of day every day, the same time of year every year, and so on. They are inward oriented rather than outward-oriented like the fiery and airy people, and so are mysteries to the latter.
         
           Still more mysterious in a way is the earthy or melancholic temperament, which is oriented more toward the actual sense perceptions rather than the reverberation of them like the phlegmatic, to sense rather than feeling. They have a preponderance of the Life Ether, which is what individualizes everything in our material world and which works especially strongly in the head; but everything which is a finished material manifestation is already beginning to die, and the melancholic feels these death forces too acutely. Hence the word melancholy.
         
          A person reading this e-mail or reading about the four temperaments in any form might be skeptical or form all sorts of judgments about how real they may be. This is completely irrelevant to anyone with actual experience working with children, who show their temperaments quite clearly all the time. As we grow up, we learn to hide them a little bit, but they can become objects of direct perception for anyone who observes young people. The class clown in any group of children is a choleric, the morose sulking one is a melancholic, and they haven't learned to hide it yet. It may be a long time before physical scientists who we all think are so smart climb off their high horses and see this in their children or other people's children, but thankfully no one needs to know about Avogadro's number or the Fleming left hand rule in order to see it for themselves. All anthroposophy does is give us a terminology to interpret what everybody can perceive directly.

        Starman

      • robert.barnskog
        Starman, ... RB: OK, good. Then I`m beginning to understand what you mean. ... RB: Yes, although in practice I think most people who engage in such activities
        Message 3 of 14 , Aug 27 2:24 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Starman,

          > > >>It seems that you consider higher faculties to be developed gradually (we are already on the "other side"), and that is also my impression from studying anthroposophy... it would be interesting to find out what you really mean. Are you saying that clairvoyance is of different degrees, and that we can develop enough of it when studying messages from spiritual scientists, mediums, mystics etc, so that we can verify or reject it? Somewhat in the same sense as we can view our own soul (feelings etc), but that we can`t really say that we see it as clearly as outer objects, until have learned to do so via esoteric training ?
          >
          > *******That's a good enough way to put it, yes.


          RB: OK, good. Then I`m beginning to understand what you mean.



          >
          > > You said it's either a choice of embarking on the path of spiritual schooling or just having blind faith. Well, nothing is stopping you from embarking on that path.
          >
          > RB: Well, how can you be so sure about this? There may be several things that stops me from doing that even if I wanted to...
          >
          > *******The doctor stressed we need devote no more than 5 minutes a day to it. Anyone can find 5 minutes a day.


          RB: Yes, although in practice I think most people who engage in such activities also want to read books and discuss with others, which takes more time. I was, however, not so much thinking of lack of time, but of possible moralic and character failures that a person might have. An the other hand you can perhaps say that working with these is also part of the path...



          > RB: No, of course you should not doubt it. It would be interesting to hear how you see the temperaments, if it is possible to do?
          >
          >
          > ******* There are two ways in which you "see" them, one which can be caught by a camera and one which cannot. The sense-perceptible things are, for instance, that the fiery or choleric temperament frequently makes people very small and compact in space, while the phlegmatic temperament makes people put on weight easily. But beyond that, the reason why choleric temperaments aren't very large physically is that they have a high metabolism and are constantly burning up their food, because everything we call "fire" is present in them to a high degree. In fact, this is the starting point for really developing science towards spiritual science, tackling the etheric world instead of only the physical: there are four main ethers. (The reason why the ether was thrown out of science was the Michelson Morley experiment which disproved a single stationary ether; but it is neither single nor stationary, but rather several kinds of ethers in constant movement. I recommend starting with Guenther Wachsmuth's "The Etheric Formative Forces in Cosmos Earth and Man".) What the ancients called "Fire" anthroposophy calls the Warmth Ether, and the choleric temperament has a lot of this in the etheric body. Red hair and reddish skin are common among Caucasians, but as I said, besides what can be photographed, there is a "fieriness" in these people, which anyone with normal sense perceives--- as when you say a person is a "fiery" speaker.
          >
          > Fire and air, which we call the warmth ether and the Light Ether, are both masculine or outward-going, so these people are active rather than passive. Fire symbolically means the will, and choleric people have lots of it; the air temperament (which we today call the sanguine) is also active but mentally, with the constant flow of ideas, rather than so much of the will. This temperament is seen in most children, where they are active mentally but don't stay very long on any one perception or subject, instead quickly jumping to another and another, like a sun beam bouncing around a room.
          >
          > Very different are the more passive water and earth temperaments. You could start by saying the masculine ones are the talkers, while the feminine ones are the listeners. Having a lot of the Chemical, Sound or Number Ether (which the ancients symbolically called Water) makes a person like to have things reverberate, echo and re-echo within one; it is contemplative rather than active, the opposite of the fiery temperament. The phlegmatics like to ponder things and return to them again and again, rather than experiencing them once and moving right on to action like the choleric. There's a special liking for cycles, for doing things at the same time of day every day, the same time of year every year, and so on. They are inward oriented rather than outward-oriented like the fiery and airy people, and so are mysteries to the latter.
          >
          > Still more mysterious in a way is the earthy or melancholic temperament, which is oriented more toward the actual sense perceptions rather than the reverberation of them like the phlegmatic, to sense rather than feeling. They have a preponderance of the Life Ether, which is what individualizes everything in our material world and which works especially strongly in the head; but everything which is a finished material manifestation is already beginning to die, and the melancholic feels these death forces too acutely. Hence the word melancholy.
          >
          > A person reading this e-mail or reading about the four temperaments in any form might be skeptical or form all sorts of judgments about how real they may be. This is completely irrelevant to anyone with actual experience working with children, who show their temperaments quite clearly all the time. As we grow up, we learn to hide them a little bit, but they can become objects of direct perception for anyone who observes young people. The class clown in any group of children is a choleric, the morose sulking one is a melancholic, and they haven't learned to hide it yet. It may be a long time before physical scientists who we all think are so smart climb off their high horses and see this in their children or other people's children, but thankfully no one needs to know about Avogadro's number or the Fleming left hand rule in order to see it for themselves.


          RB: Thanks for this description! I`ll use it to interpret what I have experienced over the years, and come back when I have something to say.



          All anthroposophy does is give us a terminology to interpret what everybody can perceive directly.
          >
          > Starman


          RB: Yes! Although for me it has been less obvious when you looks at "parts" of reality that are more far off than children and their temperaments. Are you of the opinion that all of us - in fact - experience everything, and that what the spiritual teachings really does is that they gives names (concepts) to structure the experience and excercises to strengthen the experience (perception)?


          // Robert B.
        • Durward Starman
          All anthroposophy does is give us a terminology to interpret what everybody can perceive directly. ... RB: Yes! Although for me it has been less obvious when
          Message 4 of 14 , Aug 27 10:13 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            All anthroposophy does is give us a terminology to interpret what everybody can perceive directly.
            >
            > Starman

            RB: Yes! Although for me it has been less obvious when you looks at "parts" of reality that are more far off than children and their temperaments. Are you of the opinion that all of us - in fact - experience everything, and that what the spiritual teachings really does is that they gives names (concepts) to structure the experience and excercises to strengthen the experience (perception)?

            *******Ways to understand what we're really already experiencing and to develop our abilities to experience everything more deeply, yes. For instance, in our thinking the universe's "thinking" is hidden, the World-Thoughts upon which the universe is fashioned--- in other words, within the subjective the objective is there, but we have to seek for it because from the time we're children we're taught to ignore it, to devalue our inner experiences. Only external "proofs" are considered valid by our modern scientific culture, and nothing spiritual can be known externally. So we're not given the tools to understand the inner planes.
             
               Lots of people for a century now have been having experiences of the Christ within, for instance, but without spiritual science they cannot connect this experience to their knowledge of everything else, so they largely have only the Bible to turn to, which has preserved only a fraction of what its authors experienced in the spirit and also was for men of a previous era. So they become fundamentalists and frequently enemies of anthroposophy, where anthroposophy could actually give them the language they need to digest the Christ-experience.

            Starman
            www.DrStarman.com


             


             
            Starman,

             It would be interesting to hear how you see the temperaments, if it is possible to do?
            >
            >
            > ******* There are two ways in which you "see" them, one which can be caught by a camera and one which cannot. The sense-perceptible things are, for instance, that the fiery or choleric temperament frequently makes people very small and compact in space, while the phlegmatic temperament makes people put on weight easily. But beyond that, the reason why choleric temperaments aren't very large physically is that they have a high metabolism and are constantly burning up their food, because everything we call "fire" is present in them to a high degree. In fact, this is the starting point for really developing science towards spiritual science, tackling the etheric world instead of only the physical: there are four main ethers. (The reason why the ether was thrown out of science was the Michelson Morley experiment which disproved a single stationary ether; but it is neither single nor stationary, but rather several kinds of ethers in constant movement. I recommend starting with Guenther Wachsmuth's "The Etheric Formative Forces in Cosmos Earth and Man".) What the ancients called "Fire" anthroposophy calls the Warmth Ether, and the choleric temperament has a lot of this in the etheric body. Red hair and reddish skin are common among Caucasians, but as I said, besides what can be photographed, there is a "fieriness" in these people, which anyone with normal sense perceives--- as when you say a person is a "fiery" speaker.
            >
            > Fire and air, which we call the warmth ether and the Light Ether, are both masculine or outward-going, so these people are active rather than passive. Fire symbolically means the will, and choleric people have lots of it; the air temperament (which we today call the sanguine) is also active but mentally, with the constant flow of ideas, rather than so much of the will. This temperament is seen in most children, where they are active mentally but don't stay very long on any one perception or subject, instead quickly jumping to another and another, like a sun beam bouncing around a room.
            >
            > Very different are the more passive water and earth temperaments. You could start by saying the masculine ones are the talkers, while the feminine ones are the listeners. Having a lot of the Chemical, Sound or Number Ether (which the ancients symbolically called Water) makes a person like to have things reverberate, echo and re-echo within one; it is contemplative rather than active, the opposite of the fiery temperament. The phlegmatics like to ponder things and return to them again and again, rather than experiencing them once and moving right on to action like the choleric. There's a special liking for cycles, for doing things at the same time of day every day, the same time of year every year, and so on. They are inward oriented rather than outward-oriented like the fiery and airy people, and so are mysteries to the latter.
            >
            > Still more mysterious in a way is the earthy or melancholic temperament, which is oriented more toward the actual sense perceptions rather than the reverberation of them like the phlegmatic, to sense rather than feeling. They have a preponderance of the Life Ether, which is what individualizes everything in our material world and which works especially strongly in the head; but everything which is a finished material manifestation is already beginning to die, and the melancholic feels these death forces too acutely. Hence the word melancholy.
            >
            > A person reading this e-mail or reading about the four temperaments in any form might be skeptical or form all sorts of judgments about how real they may be. This is completely irrelevant to anyone with actual experience working with children, who show their temperaments quite clearly all the time. As we grow up, we learn to hide them a little bit, but they can become objects of direct perception for anyone who observes young people. The class clown in any group of children is a choleric, the morose sulking one is a melancholic, and they haven't learned to hide it yet. It may be a long time before physical scientists who we all think are so smart climb off their high horses and see this in their children or other people's children, but thankfully no one needs to know about Avogadro's number or the Fleming left hand rule in order to see it for themselves.

            RB: Thanks for this description! I`ll use it to interpret what I have experienced over the years, and come back when I have something to say.



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