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

Re: [steiner] Question

Expand Messages
  • DrStarman@hotmail.com
    *******Well, I m really puzzled by where you get all that about Lucifer from, and pretty certain you ve been misled by someone somewhere along the way about
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 22, 2010
      *******Well, I'm really puzzled by where you get all that about "Lucifer" from, and pretty certain you've been misled by someone somewhere along the way about at least some of it! Because first, "Luciferus" is indeed Latin, but that's a translation of an earlier Greek name, in fact for the spiritual influence of Venus as the "morning star"--- also referred to in the Book of Job, using, of course, the Hebrew word, which was written thousands of years before the Latin language even came into existence. "Luc" is an old root- word for light (lux, lig, illumine) not only in Latin but Celtic (Lugh God of Light) and "fer" for "to carry" (offer or bring, ferry, Christopherus=carrier of Christ). So, the Light-Bringer. This fallen angelic being was spoken of in both Old & New Testaments, written of course in Hebrew & Greek, but when Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire they naturally used the Latin name. But he was not a figure in the pre-Christian Roman religion. How someone associated him with a Babylonian king (I'm assuming you meant Nebuchudnezzar) I have no idea. It certainly predates Rome. I don't know a Babylonian Lucifer. I have no idea who's trying to say the fallen angel appears only once in the Old Testament or that a Roman myth-being was mixed up with another from Hebrew tradition. It sounds like they perhaps have some bias or axe to grind. Steiner's direct perception was of a spirit-being that affected us in the distant past, awakening human self-consciousness earlier than evolution would have without this being affecting us. The Greeks have a version of this myth in Prometheus, and also in Greek a lower astral being or evil "daimon" associated with him was called "diabolus" in the Gospels, where diabolical comes from. They spoke of 2 opposite ones, diabolos and satanas, which are similar to Steiner's Lucifer and Ahriman. He didn't copy the old religious conceptions but rather used the names from them which came closest to what he saw and we can see as well. -starman. P.S. What is a "fubar"? ;->

      Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

      From: Sylver Wytch <sylverwytch@...>
      Sender: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:28:58 -0800 (PST)
      To: <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
      ReplyTo: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [steiner] Question


      Okay, that makes sense.  .  I have studied Zoroastrianism and wondered why Ahriman is used.  "Lucifer" is still a fubar as far as I am concerned though.  It was used only once in
      the OT and is Latin.  It refers to King Nebberkanezzer.  I do understand the confusion as the original language of the OT does refer to a "light bearer" and is confused with the Latin "light bearer" by the translators.


      --- On Sun, 11/21/10, Durward Starman <DrStarman@...> wrote:

      From: Durward Starman <DrStarman@...>
      Subject: RE: [steiner] Question
      To: "SteinerGroup AtYahoo" <steiner@yahoogroups.com>
      Date: Sunday, November 21, 2010, 8:48 PM


      ******* Sorry I didn't respond sooner, I saw your post and the start of a conversation with someone else here but nothing more. Actually, Steiner spoke of two hierarchies of evil, which he named Lucifer and Ahriman, neither of which is truly "evil" in the usual sense, in other words in the way dualistic thinkers talk about "the devil." Rather, each one is a pole of imbalance; the Luciferic spirits make us pay too much attention to ourselves, while the Ahrimanic spirits make us pay too much attention to the external world. (Lucifer, of course, is mentioned in the Old Testament and was also spoken of by the Greeks; while Ahriman was the Zoroastrian name for the spiritual force that rules this fallen world. Lucifer particularly affects females, while Ahriman more easily affects the male. Artists fall under the influence of Lucifer, while scientists are easily influenced by Ahriman, and so on. )
         The anthroposophical point of view about the Judeo-Christian religion is that it was not only the Jews that had a teaching that a Messiah was going to come to redeem the world. Zarathustra or Zoroaster (meaning by that the original source of the religion far back in prehistory, not the Zoroaster of the sixth century BC) described how all existence originated from the great Ormuzd or Ahura Mazdao, identified with the Sun, who was later overthrown by Angra Manyu or Ahriman, with the result that the original spiritual, shining reality became darkened into the fallen material world; but a spark of the original solar nature still remains within the perishable material forms corrupted by him (like us), and the founder of the Zoroastrian religion prophesied that a solar being would one day descend from the sun, the great Sun Aura, to set free that divine spark within all human beings. This was the reason why the Zoroastrian Magi came to his birth, determined by astrology, and later Manes recognized his Zoroastrian religion must have spoken of the Christ.
         The Ahrimanic spirits have their proper role in condensing everything around us, which is actually spiritual in nature, into the dense material forms that we see. The past several thousand years have been those in which the task of human beings has been to immerse themselves in and come to conquer this material world, but in the midst of this they can fall victim to believing that the material dimension of reality is all that exists. Therefore, the powerful opposing force of our time has to do with materialism, and it is this pole of error Steiner depicts as our current opponent. Lucifer affected us more in ancient times.



      To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      From: sylverwytch@...
      Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 14:26:37 -0800
      Subject: [steiner] Question

      I asked this awhile back and received no answer so I would like to ask it again.  In his lectures about the incarnation of Ahriman, why did he choose to name the "bad guy" if you will,  Ahriman?

      Ahriman is the "bad guy" in Zoroasterianism and I have studied him rather deeply.  Once you get past the intial idea of "evil" then you understand his place and why he does what he does.

      Just curious.


    • Tom Mellett
      ... P.S. What is a fubar ? ;- ... Greetings Starman, I read your nice concise description here of Ahriman and Lucifer and just wanted to contribute the
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 24, 2010
        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DrStarman@... wrote: *******
        P.S. What is a "fubar"? ;->
        Greetings Starman,

        I read your nice concise description here of Ahriman and Lucifer and just wanted to contribute the etymology of the word "fubar".

        It is an acronym that dates to both the American and British military forces in World War II.

        (Because one of the letters represents the 4 letter F-word, please allow me to translate it into the dialect of Classical Anthroposophese, where the F-word is 8 letters, i.e. "fructify.")


        FUBAR = Fructified Up Beyond All Recognition
        Or the mechanic's variant: Fructified Up Beyond Any Repair.

        This is of course related to a second popular acronym
        SNAFU = Situation Normal, All Fructified Up

        And since we are so 3-fold in anthroposophy, you might expect a third acronym and so:
        TARFU = Things Are Really Fructified Up
        Or the British variant: Things Are Royally Fructified Up

        Tom Mellett
        Los Angeles, CA
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.