Augustine's Mistake

[Bruce Michael]

Dear Friends,
We know that Augustine spent some nine years amongst the Manichean communities. Due to the failing powers of clairvoyance that happened upon humanity at that time, our old friend Augustine was unable to experience the Divine in the Natural world and assumed that the Manicheans were just fond of worshipping the material world rather than the Divine as manifested in it. This led to a misunderstanding of Manichean dualism.

Ruldolf Steiner speaks of this in his lecture "The Bridge between the
Ideal and the Real":

"Augustine passed through the impressions of the most diverse world
views.... Above all, he passed through Manicheism and Scepticism. He
had taken all those impulses into his soul which one gets if on the
one hand one looks at the world and sees everything as ideal,
beautiful and good, all that is filled with wisdom- and then, on the
other hand, sees all that is evil.

"Now we know that Manicheism tries to reconcile these two streams in
the cosmic order by assuming an eternal polarity, an everlasting
dualism, between darkness and light, evil and good; that which is
filled with wisdom and that which is filled with evil. Manicheism
comes to terms with this dualism in its own way, only by uniting
certain old pre-Christian basic concepts with its acceptance of the
polarity of world-phenomena. Above all, it unites certain ideas which
can be understood only when one knows that in ancient times the
spiritual world was perceived by humanity in atavistic clairvoyance,
and perceived in such a way that the content of the visions resembled
in appearance the sense perceptions of the physical world.

Now, because Manicheism took into itself such ideas of the
physical 'appearance' of the supersensible, it thereby gives many
people the impression that it is materialising the spiritual, as
though it presented the spiritual in material form. That of course,
is a mistake which more recent views of the world have made, a
mistake even made by Theosophy [and by modern Spiritualism].
Augustine actually broke with Manicheism because in the course of his
purified life of thought he could no longer bear this apparent materialising of the spirit."

end of quote

As Augustine said:

"I fell among men who held that the light which we see with our eyes is to be worshipped as a chief object of reverence. I assented not:
yet thought that under this covering they veiled something of great
account, which they would afterwards lay open."

De Vita Beata. Pref.

-Br.Bruce

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bruce Michael,

thank you for the post.

Dear Friends,
We know that Augustine spent some nine years amongst the Manichean communities. Due to the failing powers of clairvoyance that happened upon humanity at that time,

do you have any evidence to demonstrate clairvoyance has ever existed in other than fables and tales told to the gullible?

if so, i'm curious what evidence you have which would demonstrate that said clairvoyance was somehow being diminished amongst beings.

metta,

~v

 

[taijasi]

Vajra, just for clarity's sake, are you asking if clairvoyance exists at all (in terms of us having some kind of proof), or are you just questioning the assertion that it has diminished (since Atlantean times, Theosophists would say)?

Thanks,

~andrew

 

[Vajradhara]

Vajra, just for clarity's sake, are you asking if clairvoyance exists at all (in terms of us having some kind of proof), or are you just questioning the assertion that it has diminished (since Atlantean times, Theosophists would say)?

Thanks,

~andrew

Namaste andrew,

i'm actually asking both questions.

a) is there actual evidence of clairvoyance

and if so,

b) is there actual evidence that this ability is diminishing in sentient beings capable of such things.

sorry for the confusion.

metta,

~v

 

[Bruce Michael]

Namaste Bruce Michael,

thank you for the post.



do you have any evidence to demonstrate clairvoyance has ever existed in other than fables and tales told to the gullible?

if so, i'm curious what evidence you have which would demonstrate that said clairvoyance was somehow being diminished amongst beings.

metta,

~v

Greetings V.,
That is a somewhat loaded question. Are people these days so gullible to believe that the consciousness they hold existed in ancient Man?

Those "fables and tales" were often held to be true accounts- when they were not pure allegory.

There were Mystery Centres in the ancient world where neophytes would train for Initiation. Notably we can cite the Egyptian and Greek centres.
However since death was the reward for revealing the Mysteries, and since most of the records were destroyed, there is not a great deal of evidence. There are gleams and glimmers in the ancient literature of the Greeks.

These centres, already decadent, slowly disappeared from the face of the earth in the years A.D.

The dark age, Kali Yuga, began with the death of Krishna about 5000 years ago. It was after this time that artificial means were needed in order for men to see into the spiritual world. The Indian method is know as Yoga, and the ancient Indians have left us with detailed descriptions, and a Spiritual Science which has been unrivaled- eg The Sankya Philosophy.

It was men, males, who were admitted into the Mystery schools. For clairvoyance we can cite the Sibyls and the Pythias. Again this kind of clairvoyance disappeared.

Here is description from the times under discussion:


CW : St. Cyprian of Antioch

The scenes described took place at Antioch about the middle of the third century, 252 A.D., St. Cyprian of Antioch:

Even before the age of seven I had already been introduced into the temple of Mithra: three years later, my parents taking me to Athens to be received as citizen, I was permitted likewise to penetrate the mysteries of Ceres lamenting her daughter, and I also became the guardian of the Dragon in the Temple of Pallas.
[fn. * “The great serpent placed to watch the temple,” comments de Mirville. “How often have we repeated that it was no symbol, no personification but really a serpent occupied by a god!”––he exclaims; and we answer that at Cairo in a Mussulman, not a heathen temple, we have seen, as thousands of other visitors have also seen, a huge serpent that lived there for centuries, we were told, and was held in great respect. ]

Ascending after that to the summit of Mount Olympus, the Seat of the Gods, as it is called, there too I was initiated into the real meaning of their [the Gods’] speeches and their clamorous manifestations (strepituum). It is there that I was made to see in imagination (phantasia) [or mâyâ] those trees and all those herbs that operate such prodigies with the help of demons; . . . and I saw their dances, their warfares, their snares, illusions and promiscuities. I heard their singing. I saw finally, for forty consecutive days, the phalanx of the Gods and Goddesses, sending from Olympus, as though they were Kings, spirits to represent them on earth and act in their name among all the nations.
At that time I lived entirely on fruit, eaten only after sunset, the virtues of which were explained to me by the seven priests of the sacrifices.
When I was fifteen, my parents desired that I should be made acquainted, not only with all the natural laws in connection with the generation and corruption of bodies on earth, in the air and in the seas, but also with all the other forces grafted (insitas) on these by the Prince of the World, in order to counteract their primal and divine constitution.** At twenty, I went to Memphis, where, penetrating into the Sanctuaries, I was taught to discern all that pertains to the communications of demons [Daimônes or Spirits] with terrestrial matters, their aversion for certain places, their sympathy and attraction for others, their expulsion from certain planets, certain objects and laws, their persistence in preferring darkness and their resistance to light.
There I learned the number of the fallen Princes, and that which takes place in human souls and bodies they enter into communication with . . . .
I learnt the analogy that exists between earthquakes and rains, between the motion of the earth‡ and the motion of the seas; I saw the spirits of the Giants plunged in subterranean darkness and seemingly supporting the earth like a man carrying a burden on his shoulders.
When thirty, I travelled to Chaldaea to study there the true power of the air, placed by some in the fire and by the more learned in light [Âkâúa]. I was taught to see that the planets were in their variety as dissimilar as the plants on earth, and the stars were like armies ranged in battle order. I knew the Chaldaean division of Ether into 365 parts,|| and I perceived that everyone of the demons who divide it among themselves was endowed with that material force that permitted him to execute the orders of the Prince and guide all the movements therein [in the Ether].** They [the Chaldees] explained to me how those Princes had become participants in the Council of Darkness, ever in opposition to the Council of Light.
I got acquainted with the Mediatores and upon seeing the covenants they were mutually bound

––––––––––
* Here the Elemental and Elementary Spirits are evidently meant.

¶ Daimon is not “demon,” as translated by de Mirville, but Spirit.

by, I was struck with wonder upon learning the nature of their oaths to observe, them.
Believe me, I saw the Devil; believe me I have embraced him and have conversed with him; when I was yet quite young, he saluted me by the title of the new Jambres, declaring me worthy of my ministry [initiation] . . . . He promised me continual help during life and a principality after death.‡ Having become in great honour [an Adept] under his tuition, he placed under my orders a phalanx of demons, and when I bid him good-bye, “Courage, good success, excellent Cyprian,” he exclaimed, rising up from his seat to see me to the door, plunging thereby those present into a profound admiration.

We could also examine the Arthurian legends, authors like Paracelsus etc. for descriptions of clairvoyance- there is much, much more.

As for evidence of the diminishing of these powers, well this has been going on for a long time. In the times we are speaking of we witness the disappearance of those Mystery Centres. The forces had become impotent.

It's a big subject, and would require a book rather then a little comment here.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.

Greetings V.,
That is a somewhat loaded question. Are people these days so gullible to believe that the consciousness they hold existed in ancient Man?

perhaps more concentration on the evidence aspect of the query would be more fruitful.

Those "fables and tales" were often held to be true accounts- when they were not pure allegory.

whilst that is certainly so it is also certain that many of the views which they held to be true were, in fact, not.

..... there is not a great deal of evidence.

would you be so kind as to link me to some?

The dark age, Kali Yuga, began with the death of Krishna about 5000 years ago.

this is a decidely unorthodox Sanatana Dharma view.

We could also examine the Arthurian legends, authors like Paracelsus etc. for descriptions of clairvoyance- there is much, much more.

descriptons of clarivoyance are not evidence that said ability exists, i would hope you agree.

As for evidence of the diminishing of these powers, well this has been going on for a long time. In the times we are speaking of we witness the disappearance of those Mystery Centres. The forces had become impotent.

It's a big subject, and would require a book rather then a little comment here.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

hmm.. well.... how could anyone know that without evidence... specifically, evidence of how it used to be and then compared to how it is?

don't misunderstand... the Buddha Dharma explains that clairvoyance is something that any being will have once they are sufficiently far along the Path. there are accounts in the Suttas of many instance of clairvoyance and other abilities which would seem quite incredible.

metta,

~v

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello V,
>perhaps more concentration on the evidence aspect of the query would >be more fruitful.

Perhaps it would be an exercise in futility, since the witnesses I would present, you wouldn't believe.
Are you saying that the Mystery centres didn't exist? For we have evidence enough in stone and word.

>whilst that is certainly so it is also certain that many of the views which >they held to be true were, in fact, not.

So too with the views of today.

>would you be so kind as to link me to some?
As I said, you could read Paracelsus for a start.
Dr.Steiner quotes the ancient Greeks:
CaMF: Chapter 12: Christianity and Pagan Wisdom

>this is a decidely unorthodox Sanatana Dharma view.

4th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Hindu mythology, the Epoch of the Kali Yuga occurred at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BC, the traditional death of Krishna.


>descriptons of clarivoyance are not evidence that said ability exists, i >would hope you agree.

That is the only historical evidence you're going to get- unless you're able to view the Akashic Chronicle personally. The saint I quoted didn't describe clairvoyance, he related his own experiences.

As my Teachers have said.

One cannot receive material proof of spiritual actuality.

Example: Red requires proof of the existence of orange. But red requires mingling with yellow, before such transformation. If red is separate to yellow, red will only perceive the yellow. Red must give over to the power of yellow and be so touched, as to find the contrast of orange. We walk the world as red, and we are separate to the untouchable yellow and unattainable orange, until we can absorb and take into ourselves that yellow.

>hmm.. well.... how could anyone know that without evidence... >specifically, evidence of how it used to be and then compared to how it is?

How can we be certain of anything? As I said the evidence is certainly there in the Greek literature and in the quote I presented.

The initiate is privy to the evidences by virtue of his ability to view the Akashic Record.

>don't misunderstand... the Buddha Dharma explains that clairvoyance is >something that any being will have once they are sufficiently far along >the Path.

Well as an theosophist said to me, dogs have much better hearing than us. Clairvoyance is not necessarily an indication high development. There are degrees of clairvoyance as well. And then there is Blood clairvoyance- inherited.

Cheerio,
Br.Bruce

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.

Hello V,
>perhaps more concentration on the evidence aspect of the query would >be more fruitful.

Perhaps it would be an exercise in futility, since the witnesses I would present, you wouldn't believe.

hmm... witnesses are not evidence. as i'm sure you know eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable in a trial which is why evidence is the standard.

i would appreciate an honest response to the query rather than telling me what i will or will not accept. i would like to be able to determine that for myself.

Are you saying that the Mystery centres didn't exist? For we have evidence enough in stone and word.

then it should be quite easy to link to this, yes?

>would you be so kind as to link me to some?
As I said, you could read Paracelsus for a start.
Dr.Steiner quotes the ancient Greeks:
CaMF: Chapter 12: Christianity and Pagan Wisdom

without a belief in a soul, most of that is nonesense to me.

evidence, my friend, is what i'm asking for. intersubjective evidence of your claim at which point i'd be more than happy to consider it.

i do not mean to be indelicate however what you are talking about in those linked pages was identifed some 2,000 years earlied by Buddhist meditators and, in fact, represents a being that has identified one of the experiences as the ground of being from which all others arise. the Suttas specifically point this out as an error.

"For it has become merged with the divine, identified with it."

>this is a decidely unorthodox Sanatana Dharma view.

4th millennium BC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to Hindu mythology, the Epoch of the Kali Yuga occurred at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BC, the traditional death of Krishna.

i snipped my comment too soon. i was commenting on the part of it where you state "It was after this time that artificial means were needed in order for men to see into the spiritual world."

to describe Yoga as an artifical means is quite unorthodox for any of the Dharma traditions.

>descriptons of clarivoyance are not evidence that said ability exists, i >would hope you agree.

That is the only historical evidence you're going to get- unless you're able to view the Akashic Chronicle personally. The saint I quoted didn't describe clairvoyance, he related his own experiences.

perhaps we are using the term "evidence" differently.

Evidence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

i mean to be asking for intersubjective evidence in this case.

>hmm.. well.... how could anyone know that without evidence... >specifically, evidence of how it used to be and then compared to how it is?

How can we be certain of anything? As I said the evidence is certainly there in the Greek literature and in the quote I presented.

please reveiw my understanding of intersubjective evidence and you'll understand why a qoute and Greek literature do not count as the sort of evidence i'm asking for.

it is evidence, but not of the right sort.

of course, the only reason to provide the right sort of evidence would be to pursade me to your arugments validity which you may or may not have any interest in doing

Well as an theosophist said to me, dogs have much better hearing than us. Clairvoyance is not necessarily an indication high development. There are degrees of clairvoyance as well. And then there is Blood clairvoyance- inherited.

Cheerio,
Br.Bruce

hopefully you knew that dogs had a greater hearing range than humans prior to a theosophist mentioning it to you. did you know that baby humans have a greater hearing range than adult humans? they are designing cell phones that will ring at a frequency that adults cannot hear.

in the Buddhist tradition, clairvoyace is a mark of progress through the Jhanas though none of the extraordinary ablities are of any real use in our practice which is why there really isn't much focus on them.

that said, i cannot provide any intersubjective evidence that Buddhists develop clairvoyance and i was hoping that, as it seems you've spent some time on this subject, you could provide it to me for use in my future discussions.

metta,

~v

 

[Bruce Michael]

Shalom Br. Vaj.

>hmm... witnesses are not evidence. as i'm sure you know eye witnesses >are notoriously unreliable in a trial which is why evidence is the standard.

Eye witnesses are used in courts every day of the week. Sorry, I assumed that that is what you meant. I thought you wanted me to produce testimony from people who had clairvoyant experiences in the past.

>i would appreciate an honest response to the query rather than telling me >what i will or will not accept.
Well you should of told me what you expected. I'm still not sure.
The founder of scepticism was influenced by Buddhism:

The most striking sign of this possible influence is how Pyrrho expressed himself in the actual form of the Four-Fold Negation, one of the fundamental and most characteristic principles of Buddhism: "...but we should be unopinionated, uncommitted, and unwavering, saying concerning each individual thing that it no more is than is not, or it both is and is not, or it neither is nor is not" [Aristocles].
The entire tradition of Hellenistic skepticism may thus have Buddhist roots.

“


>then it should be quite easy to link to this, yes?

You could start here:
Rudolf Steiner Archive: Lectures:GA
If you want images, here's a few suggestions to Google:
delphi temple, ephesus temple

There were over 1800 sites, when I Googled Mystery centres.

>without a belief in a soul, most of that is nonesense to me.

What is this soul you don't believe in?
You still didn't answer my query about what you were certain about.

>evidence, my friend, is what i'm asking for. intersubjective evidence of >your claim at which point i'd be more than happy to consider it.

I see, you want knowledge from your self/world experience. Well yes you can have that but it may take a lot of training over many lives.

I'm sure you'll find that most of the knowledge you have is from the testimony of others. If it wasn't we would spend an inordinate amount of time learning anything. And this is a good thing because it promotes the principle of Brotherhood.

You see my friend I could tell you about the rings around Saturn, but in order to be 100% sure you would need to take a spaceship there. There are a lot of things in life like that.



>i do not mean to be indelicate however what you are talking about in >those linked pages was identifed some 2,000 years earlied by Buddhist >meditators

Ah, but do you have evidence of this?- testimonies cannot be accepted as you have set the ground rules.

> the Suttas specifically point this out as an error.

>"For it has become merged with the divine, identified with it."

Why is this an authority? The opposite could also be claimed that in fact the Divine is the archetype of personality.

>to describe Yoga as an artifical means is quite unorthodox for any of the >Dharma traditions.

As you may know "yoga" is related to the word "yoke"- practices which "yoke" the student to the spiritual world. In times previous this was not necessary as the primordial Man was at one with the Spiritual.


>i mean to be asking for intersubjective evidence in this case.

It's a goose/gander situation then.


>of course, the only reason to provide the right sort of evidence would be >to pursade me to your arugments validity which you may or may not have >any interest in doing

I always expect people to do their own thinking, as I have said repeatably on this board. I do not put authority before truth.

the believers will believe, whatever the case; the disbelievers as well, shall hold to their courses respectively.

>hopefully you knew that dogs had a greater hearing range than humans >prior to a theosophist mentioning it to you.

I didn't have evidence of it but I did speak to a nice Maltese terrier who told me about it- he was notoriously unreliable though.


>did you know that baby humans have a greater hearing range than adult >humans?

Not only babies, but teenagers too.

>in the Buddhist tradition, clairvoyace is a mark of progress through the >Jhanas though none of the extraordinary ablities are of any real use in our >practice which is why there really isn't much focus on them.

What is tradition based on and why should we give it credence? If you are going to be skeptical you should be consistent.

>that said, i cannot provide any intersubjective evidence that Buddhists >develop clairvoyance and i was hoping that, as it seems you've spent >some time on this subject, you could provide it to me for use in my future >discussions.

I don't doubt that some Buddhists have developed clairvoyant abilities of varying kinds. The evidence may be in individuals following certain exercises and then proving such things for themselves.

You will find other modern experimental proofs in the works of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and on his website.

Best Wishes,
Br.Bruce

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Bruce,

thank you for the post.

Eye witnesses are used in courts every day of the week. Sorry, I assumed that that is what you meant. I thought you wanted me to produce testimony from people who had clairvoyant experiences in the past.

sorry for the confusion, hopefully my request is more clear now.

Well you should of told me what you expected. I'm still not sure.

quite right. my apologies once more.

intersubjective evidence as described substantially in the link i posted.

You could start here:
Rudolf Steiner Archive: Lectures:GA
If you want images, here's a few suggestions to Google:
delphi temple, ephesus temple

thanks, i'll read it asap.

>without a belief in a soul, most of that is nonesense to me.

What is this soul you don't believe in?

the article you quoted mentioned the idea of soul, to wit:

"From his point of view the processes leading to the divine take place in the innermost part of the human soul. "

generally speaking, i have the working understanding that beings referring to a soul are referring to the Atman, in my tradition. some aspect of the self which persists through the dissoulution of the physical form is the explanation that i hear many thiests provide.

You still didn't answer my query about what you were certain about.

my apologies... let me review the query..

i'm sorry.. i don't actually see a question to me asking what i'm certain about.. i see a question asking "how can we be sure of anything?" is that what you'd like for me to address?

I see, you want knowledge from your self/world experience. Well yes you can have that but it may take a lot of training over many lives.

hmm.. did you read the link about intersubjective evidence?

I'm sure you'll find that most of the knowledge you have is from the testimony of others. If it wasn't we would spend an inordinate amount of time learning anything. And this is a good thing because it promotes the principle of Brotherhood.

i'm not sure about principles and so forth...

what others testify to i don't count as my knowledge, per se. i hold it provisonally to be correct, say Germ Theory, until such time that there is evidence to overturn this view.... i may even operate as if Germ Theory were absolutely correct. however, should there be alternate explanations which are as well supported by the intersubjective evidence, i would consider them as well.

there is, as you know, quite a degree of debate in philosophical circles concerning what one can actually accept as knowledge but that may not be all that germane to our conversation.

You see my friend I could tell you about the rings around Saturn, but in order to be 100% sure you would need to take a spaceship there. There are a lot of things in life like that.

i could look through a telescope and see them, yes?

Ah, but do you have evidence of this?- testimonies cannot be accepted as you have set the ground rules.

no intersubjective evidence at all, which is what i said at the end of my last posting.

Why is this an authority? The opposite could also be claimed that in fact the Divine is the archetype of personality.

because it is being referenced. if one makes a reference from a book and accepts that reference as valid then said book/text becomes the authority of its contents.

of course the opposite could be claimed. however..if that is so, why try to find support for said view within an alternate paradigm?

As you may know "yoga" is related to the word "yoke"- practices which "yoke" the student to the spiritual world. In times previous this was not necessary as the primordial Man was at one with the Spiritual.

as i mentioned, this is not an orthodox view of Yoga within the Dharma traditions. though i would certainly suggest that you ask the other Dharma traditions their view as well.

the Indian term "yoga" is dervied from the Sanskrit root verb "yuj" - to link, join or unite - which is related etymologically to "yoke" - a yoke of oxen, and in this sense analgous to the word "religion" (Latin - re-ligio) - to link back or bind. man, the creature, is by religion bound back to God. however, religion, religio, refers to a linking historically conditioned by way of a covenant, sacrament or revealed book, whereas yoga is the psychological linking of the mind to that superordinated principle "by which the mind knows" (Up Kena). furthermore, in yoga what is linked is finally the self to itself, consciousness to consciousness; for what had seemed, through maya, to be two are in reality not so; whereas in religion what are linked are God and man, which are not the same.

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/the-shared-myth-560.html

I didn't have evidence of it but I did speak to a nice Maltese terrier who told me about it- he was notoriously unreliable though.

do you know what a dog whistle is?

What is tradition based on and why should we give it credence? If you are going to be skeptical you should be consistent.

i am being consistent. you should not accept tradition in the least until you, yourself, can verify what is being said. this is, too, clearly stated in the Suttas.

that i rely upon the Buddha Dharma to inform my view of the Buddha Dharma should be of no surprise.

metta,

~v

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hi Vaj,
<intersubjective evidence as described substantially in the link i posted.

It is truly difficult when asking other people for their opinions or interpretations, as truth does not depend upon consensus - thankfully.

Also, I don't agree with you that we should ignore eyewitness accounts, such as the one I posted. Some eyewitnesses may be poor, but that doesn't discount the fact that others might be superb.

Just as a man with a cheap telescope might tell you that there are no rings around Saturn, a clairvoyant who is not so advanced might not be able to discern clearly certain spiritual facts.

>the article you quoted mentioned the idea of soul, to wit:

>"From his point of view the processes leading to the divine take place in >the innermost part of the human soul. "

>generally speaking, i have the working understanding that beings referring >to a soul are referring to the Atman, in my tradition. some aspect of the >self which >persists through the dissoulution of the physical form is the >explanation that i hear many thiests provide.

No, Atman is not soul in the teachings I follow- it is Spirit. It is a word related to the English "Atmosphere", it is Pneuma. Atma (or Spirit Man) is at the apex of our Higher Self.

I am a student of the Christian Esoteric teachings, which were most powerfully put forward in the early twentieth century by Rudolf Steiner, and further elaborated by teachers such as Valentin Tomberg, Emil Bock, Walter Stein, the Elder Brothers et al.

Spirit is of the Eternal, the Highest, the Immortal, of God. We have our own spirit-spark which is clothed in soul.

Some would say that the soul is the astral body [Kama Rupa], but there is more to it than that. The soul stands as a mediator between our earthly personality and our spirit. The spirit, being perfection, would drive us like a slave driver, not comprehending fully our needs and capabilities. Our finer feelings and thoughts feed our soul.

The Brothers make it clear that you are you firstly because of your soul:

"I am what I am firstly because I am the soul, not because of the faculty which does recognise such, without which I would still be and still are - in slumber, in wakefulness, I, my soul, endures.
The sense of I, id - individuality in relation to the worlds - becomes distinct because I have a soul; without which I should not come to know that I know, but should gravitate to and around that which I am most sympathetic to."

Steiner talks further on the soul:

Essay: The Human Soul in the Twilight of Dreams
>about.. i see a question asking "how can we be sure of anything?" is that >what you'd like for me to address?

Yes, I'd like your ideas on that, if you'd care to tell me.

>hmm.. did you read the link about intersubjective evidence?

It was a long article. I did skim through most of it- there are some popular opinions in it. I did read about the intersubjective evidence theory.

I find this a much better guide for a philosophical understanding of the gleaning of knowledge:

PoSA (Poppelbaum): Chapter VII

>what others testify to i don't count as my knowledge, per se. i hold it >provisonally to be correct, say Germ Theory, until such time that there is >evidence to overturn this view.... i may even operate as if Germ Theory >were absolutely correct. however, should there be alternate explanations >which are as well supported by the >intersubjective evidence, i would >consider them as well.

Sometimes there is only one spring in the desert.

>i could look through a telescope and see them, yes?

I assume that you do believe there are rings without personally witnessing.


>because it is being referenced. if one makes a reference from a book and >accepts >that reference as valid then said book/text becomes the >authority of its contents.

Printers' ink has a special wisdom all of its own.

>do you know what a dog whistle is?

My original comment was not a non sequitur.

>i am being consistent. you should not accept tradition in the least until you, yourself, >can verify what is being said. this is, too, clearly stated in the Suttas.

It would take you a very very long time to personally verify everything. And some things might prove impossible to verify.

Warm Regards,
Br.Bruce

 

[Bruce Michael]

Hello Friends,
The aims of the Yoga student are quite different to that of the student of Christian Rosicrucianism- though Rosicrucianism could be described as "Christian Yoga".

Find below an extract from the best article by Valentin Tomberg I have found on the differences between Indian Yoga and the Christian paths:

THE GOALS OF THE STUDENT OF YOGA

We are faced with the question : What does the student of Yoga actually want to achieve ? What aim does his soul have in view ?

The goal of the Yoga student is to be freed from the bonds of the body, and essentially Yoga technique employs methods for breaking these bonds. These consist of a system of exercises along with a certain way of life which call forth changes in the human being, taking him further in the direction of this goal. The transformations striven for by repeated exercises and the definite life style of Yoga result in the formation of a kind of stream of forces which come from below and move upwards in the human organism ; from the lower body up into the head.

This stream of forces moving from below upward (the so- called "Kundalini Fire") reaches the brain and crown of the skull and penetrates through them, causing consciousness to be loosened from the body and the experience of the desired state of freedom from earthly bonds. In this way through Indian Yoga, experiences are sought which arise in connection with a freeing from the body. This striving is a striving after freedom but in the sense of a freedom from the earth.

The practical aim of Yoga actually stands in polar opposition to the ideals of the representatives of Christian European culture. These representatives of the profound Christian spiritual life revealing itself in the past in the form of Rosicrucianism, strove also toward a practical goal, yet their goal is entirely different from that of Indian Yoga. For them the important thing is not to be freed from the earthly element, but to redeem everything earthly from evil.

The idea which forms the basis for this striving is not the opposition between spirit and matter, but rather the opposition between good and evil.

Christianity, not as a philosophical or theological teaching, but as a active spiritual force in the world, proceeds from the idea that evil has penetrated into the world and that error, sickness, and death are its results. Therefore it cannot be Christianity's task to retreat from that realm, but rather to conquer the evil which has given cause for error, suffering and death.

-Br.Bruce