Divine Sophia
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Dear Dottie, Paulina, and Rick,
I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist, and
Adam2/The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth, because
I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden mysteri.
I had a feeling that Adam 2 was female and E. Smiths: The Burning
Bush confirmed it. I will now call her Eve, and Adam 1 for Adam!
The possibility that Abel was feminine gave me an idea.
There is a kind of rule who states: If there is a spiritual principle
there is also a spiritual being.
I thought about another rule: If a being represents female or
male principles then it has to be part of the human wave.
And: If a person represents female principles then it is female,
and if a person represents male principles it has to be male.
I don't say that these statements are right, but they worked
for my research. (I can find places where the validity can be
discussed.)
Sophia is both mentioned as female or as both male and female
by the Gnostics.
I read 'The Organ of the Pentecostal Revelation' by Valentin
Tomberg.
The description of Sophia as 'the mother of the world' rang a
bell. Rudolf Steiner has a series of lectures, which in german
is named 'Christus und die geistige Welt. Von der Suche nach
dem heiligen Gral', describing the gnostic view of Sophia (which
is not Steiners), Eves and Christ's actions in the solar system,
some informations about the sibylles and the Grall's mysteries.
It is a quite fascinating book, with information I have not seen
anywhere else.
My tesis is that Eve in combination with Adam, as the other/lower
aspect, is the Devine Sophia. This is not in itself so astounding,
but in combination with the other 'roles' they play, it is.
An interesting schenario is this:
We have, at the cross, John/Lazarus/Hiram/Cain
with Adam, Magdalene/Queen of Sheba/Abel (which I believe is
the twin soul to Cain) and 'The Mother of Jesus'/Sophia/Eve which
is the twin soul to Adam, and whose Astral body is given to John/Lazarus/Adam.
Later Christian Rosencreutz was inspired by Sophia (and with
help of others) to define the Initiation which is directed aginst
the end of this cycle.
Corcerning the Eve in Jahve (Dottie), that
is right. As I interpret the above mentioned Steiner lecture,
Jahve is the combination of the moon mother (Eve) and the earth
master (Adam), permeated with Christ.
The following is more speculative:
Another thing which arouse my curiosity is that Valentin Tombergs
description of Sophia (above), and Rudolf Steiners description
of Michael:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19240113p01.html
gives the impression that if Sophia is not Michael, then they
are at least connected with each other.
I think that i somewhere have seen RS say that the Apollonian
Bodhisatva took the role as Michael after Michael entered a new
level, but I can't remember where and the words.
About the ascending Michael see http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19130520p01.html.
Eve as Bodhisatva incarnating in Jesus can have gone Buddha after
that incarnation, and be the direct cause of the ascending of
Michael. In principle could Adam also, after his John the Baptist
incarnation, gone Buddha. His later incarnations has been 'remote',
not to learn but to pour visdom down. My impression is that for
Michael to ascend both his twin souls should ascend, on the other
hand Steiner stresses that Michael is ascending, and not that
he is ascended. It could be that it was Adams job to give the
Sophia mysteries to the world in the future.
The Michael of today represents wisdom (last address).
If I am right, I think that we know have possibilities for better
understanding of 'The Divine Sophia'.
Another thing is that we have a simpler view of the primary beings
now at work Christ-Holy Spirit-Michael(Archai)-Sophia(AA)-Adam(A)-Cain/Abel/more...
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:13 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist,
and Adam2/The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth,
because I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden
mysteri.
Hi Kim!
I need to understand really clearly where
do you get these two Adams from? Where do they originate, in
what part of Genesis? Are they from the two purported creation
stories?
I am reading Genesis and when I get to 4 it
shows the women giving birth. When I get to 5 we are starting
over again but with Seth.
Now, when Seth was born it says he was 'instead'
of Abel in Eve's eyes. And it also says that when Seth is born
it was at this moment/time that men turned to the Lord.
When 5 starts we are back at the creation
story but on a new understanding of sorts and it is all male
begotten. Somehow it feels like the split was right there. I
think it might be there we find the male and female lines completely
separated in a sense.
I am following the feminine line to Ham, Noah's
son so far. I have to do some rereading in order to really hold
it.
So where do your two Adams originate? I can't
seem to read the rest of your amazing post until I have this
understanding.
Good work Kim,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:08 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:
Dear Dottie, Paulina, and Rick,
I have used some time around Adam1/Elias/John the Baptist, and
Adam2/ The Appolonian Bodhisattva/The boy Jesus of Nazareth,
because I had an intuition which said that there where a hidden
mysteri.
I had a feeling that Adam 2 was female and E. Smiths: The Burning
Bush confirmed it. I will now call her Eve, and Adam 1 for Adam!
Kim,
This surprises me because in the lecture cycle
FROM JESUS TO CHRIST, Steiner says that Christ is the second
Adam.
Would you please give me the BB chapter and
page reference for this? I have the book, but, don't recall Ed
saying this, but, then that book is enormous, and I don't claim
to have much of it stored in my memory.
Thanks,
Paulina
P.S.:
This tendency to turn the males into females, so to speak (Abel,
etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the point is or the need
that is driving this tendency?
For instance, why would Moses hide the sexual
identity of Abel when he wrote Genesis? It's written in mysery
wisdom language anyway.
I continue to feel that there is much too
strong an inclination to see in material physically defined terms
that which is beyond material or physical manifestation. I keep
trying to think of a way to explain what I mean, but, everything
I come up with seems so lame. I think that we just have to try
and stretch our imaginations beyond gender identification when
it comes to sublime beings such as the Divine Sophia because
we are talking here about a condition of consciousness wherein
there is _activity_ raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual
dimensions rather than individuated personification.
Just my take on this. :-)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:35 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Hi Dottie
In our correspondence http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584
there is references to E.Smith about the two Adams.
All of the lines originate from the Moon cycle.
In the Steiner lectures mentioned in my last posting there is
also a good description of the sibylles.
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:27 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584
there is references to E.Smith about the two Adams.
Hi Kim,
I can not see that they speak outright to
exactly what part of Genesis they come from. I always find it
first in the Bible before looking elsewhere. So I have these
various streams within Genesis that have perked my ears. So,
I need to know exactly, if you know, what Genesis chapter speaks
to Adam1 and what one to Adam2?
Thanks,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 6:49 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Hello Paulina
Paulina
This surprises me because in the lecture cycle FROM JESUS
TO CHRIST, Steiner says that Christ is the second Adam.
Kim
I have found out, that many places where Steiner mentions Christ
or Michael it is in reality the Angel like being Eve who is the
executive power, that is she has the bodies to act in our world.
The Steiner lectures, I mentioned, it is told how Christ three
deeds where made through he(r).
The Adam 2 was in reality the etherbody of the Nathan child,
and the etherbody Christ also used after his resurrection.
I looked for the place in Bock's unpublished where he describes
the two Adams, but found a better: Chapter 24, The Mysteri of
Jesu Childhood (my translation from danish). In my book it's
the last 7 pages in that chapter.
Paulina
Would you please give me the BB chapter and page reference
for this? I have the book, but, don't recall Ed saying this,
but, then that book is enormous, and I don't claim to have much
of it stored in my memory.
Kim
He has written about it more than one place, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584
but this one is the most interesting, I think:
If one considers the above symbol in the light
of these remarks, it is quite apparent that it portrays the Fall,
salvation, and ascension of the human being, which is the theme
of the Bible from Gen 1 to Rev 22, the ultimate application of
the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the story of two sons, the “prodigal”
first Adam, who fell, and the second Adam, his sister soul, who,
by serving the Christ, brought him to his senses and made his
return possible. The first Adam was “the son of God”
(Lk 3,38) and the second was “the Son of God.” The
reality of the Fall, redemption and eventual ascension is central
to the teaching of anthroposophy.
from http://www.bibleandanthroposophy.com/Smith/main/burning_bush/charts_tabs/i87.html
.
Paulina
This tendency to turn the males into females, so to speak
(Abel, etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the point is or
the need that is driving this tendency?
For instance, why would Moses hide the
sexual identity of Abel when he wrote Genesis? It's written in
mysery wisdom language anyway.
Kim
I see both the OT and NT as written for all level's of initiates,
that mean for everybody, as an educational aid. The OT represents
a Father religion, to implant the masculine impulse, as a contrast
to the old Moon cycle, and that could be the reason for masquerading
beings with the male sex. Another possibility, for early man,
was that the differentiation in sex'es was smaller at that time.
The NT is working toward the equilibrium between the sexes. To
reach the equilibrium, the impulse from Sophia is working right
now. But when the equilibrium is within sight, there has to be
a new impulse, and that is, I think, the join between 'Adam'
& 'Eve'.
Paulina
I continue to feel that there is much too strong an inclination
to see in material physically defined terms that which is beyond
material or physical manifestation. I keep trying to think of
a way to explain what I mean, but, everything I come up with
seems so lame. I think that we just have to try and stretch our
imaginations beyond gender identification when it comes to sublime
beings such as the Divine Sophia because we are talking here
about a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_
raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather
than individuated personification.
Kim
There is absolutely a danger ending in counting the number of
angles who can be on a needle, but, on the other hand, to make
order in ones thoughts, to simplify things which, does not need
to be so complicated, to find the relations between the entities.
I think that this will also make it simpler to relate the principles
in the cabbala with the bible.
If you read the Steiner lectures, I mentioned, you will not mistake
Sophia as a normal being. Chapter 24 by Bock gives also an idea
of her, but not as the Steiner Lectures, which is absolutely
astounding.
One of the results of this, was, that I found the connection
between Sophia and Michael. They are not two different principles,
and, as Steiner has written a great deal on Michael's aspect
of wisdom, we have there a description of Sophia.
Just my take on this. :-)
Give me more of that, it gives me more ;-)
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 12:14 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:
Paulina
Would you please give me the BB chapter
and page reference for this? I have the book, but, don't recall
Ed saying this, but, then that book is enormous, and I don't
claim to have much of it stored in my memory.
Kim
He has written about it more than one place, see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/584
Yes, I reread the FIRST AND SECOND ADAM BB
references again last night before going to bed.
I continue to see Jesus Christ as the 2nd
Adam.
Ed Smith did not say that the 2nd Adam was
female, but, that "the part of the etheric body withheld
from Adam was female in nature and went into the Nathan Jesus
child; that withheld from Eve, being male, went into the Nathan
Mary. Thus, the only part of Jesus of Nazareth before he became
Jesus Christ was the etheric body and that was female in nature."
Does this work for you?
pkl
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:18 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Paulina
Yes, I reread the FIRST AND SECOND ADAM BB references again
last night before going to bed.
I continue to see Jesus Christ as the 2nd
Adam.
Ed Smith did not say that the 2nd Adam
was female, but, that "the part of the etheric body withheld
from Adam was female in nature and went into the Nathan Jesus
child; that withheld from Eve, being male, went into the Nathan
Mary. Thus, the only part of Jesus of Nazareth before he became
Jesus Christ was the etheric body and that was female in nature."
Kim: I might have misunderstood the word sistersoul,
we don't use the word between 'brothers'. On the other hand,
I would like to know how you split a soul in two living beings
of the same sex. God created Adam as male-female, and you can
separate those elements in two beings for a while, but you can
not split the single principle male in two full functioning beings.
On the other hand, it would of course solve the problem, as some
think there is, with the many incarnated today.
But, if that Adam 2 is male, then Sophia is male, and then I
think there is a problem.
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: Richard Distasi
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:39 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
"The possibility that Abel was feminine gave me an idea."
Kim, I have to agree with Paulina that there would be no point
in Moses disguising Abel as a male figure if this figure was
actually female. My point about Mary Magdalene as possibly being
Abel is simply that there seems to be a deep karmic connection
between MM and Lazarus and it may have started here when MM may
have had this former male incarnation as Abel.
It is paramount to also mention that this is pure speculation.
I can't really substantiate it with anything Steiner had said.
However, mysteries are often solved by asking "what if"
questions then pursuing them to see if one's "hunch"
is correct.
A very important aspect to bear in mind about Cain and Abel is
that they are also archetypal figures. Abel represented the old
atavistic consciousness. "He was a keeper of flocks."
His sacrifices were pleasing to the Lord - the spiritual world.
It was a consciousness that was filled by the impulses of the
spiritual hierarchies or more specifically the Elohim. This consciousness
had to die. It had to meet the forces of death in the human brain.
Cain on the other hand was a "tiller of the soil."
His consciousness was now earth bound. His sacrifice is not accepted
by the Lord; at least not immediately. The Lord/spiritual hierarchies
place a challenge before Cain to do well; to master his destiny
and himself out of his own will and free consciousness.
rick distasi
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:30 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Hello Rick
Rick
Kim, I have to agree with Paulina that there would be no point
in Moses disguising Abel as a male figure if this figure was
actually female. My point about Mary Magdalene as possibly being
Abel is simply that there seems to be a deep karmic connection
between MM and Lazarus and it may have started here when MM may
have had this former male incarnation as Abel.
Kim
Se my answer to Paulina on why he could have been 'she'.
Rick
It is paramount to also mention that this is pure speculation.
I can't really substantiate it with anything Steiner had said.
However, mysteries are often solved by asking "what if"
questions then pursuing them to see if one's "hunch"
is correct.
Kim
Both the Cain and Abel incarnations in Lazarus and MM is speculative.
On the other hand, they are between the oldest souls on earth,
so it would be naturally if it was them. The primary here is
that MM and Lazarus represents Abel and Cain.
Rick
A very important aspect to bear in mind about Cain and Abel
is that they are also archetypal figures. Abel represented the
old atavistic consciousness. "He was a keeper of flocks."
His sacrifices were pleasing to the Lord - the spiritual world.
It was a consciousness that was filled by the impulses of the
spiritual hierarchies or more specifically the Elohim. This consciousness
had to die. It had to meet the forces of death in the human brain.
Cain on the other hand was a "tiller of the soil."
His consciousness was now earth bound. His sacrifice is not accepted
by the Lord; at least not immediately. The Lord/spiritual hierarchies
place a challenge before Cain to do well; to master his destiny
and himself out of his own will and free consciousness.
K im
To say it in other words: Abel represent the old Moon, where
Cain represents the new earth. Abel has to die, to get the new
impulse into the earth development. When Christ was born, we
where on our way out in the Cain roadside. To counter that Christ
set the new cosmic power, Sophia, to move the development against
the midle of the road (Christ, which is the equilibrium), where
Cain and Abel should join again.
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
In a message dated 12/18/03 7:10:35 AM !First
Boot!, pkleonard writes:
This tendency to turn the males into females,
so to speak (Abel, etc,) puzzles me and I do not see what the
point is or the need that is driving this tendency?
For instance, why would Moses hide the sexual identity of Abel
when he wrote Genesis? It's written in mysery wisdom language
anyway.
I continue to feel that there is much too strong an inclination
to see in material physically defined terms that which is beyond
material or physical manifestation. I keep trying to think of
a way to explain what I mean, but, everything I come up with
seems so lame. I think that we just have to try and stretch our
imaginations beyond gender identification when it comes to sublime
beings such as the Divine Sophia because we are talking here
about a condition of consciousness wherein there is _activity_
raying downward from incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather
than individuated personification.
Just my take on this. :-)
Hi Paulina:
I remember going through a mushy "Explore
your Feminine side" phase in the mid-80's -- Lots of new-agey
Goddess stuff (which I still much admire). Then I found "Iron
John," by Robert Bly -- The deep pool of the yet unconscious,
where "the Wild Man" lives; the power of Masculine
energy; the lack of effective "initiation" rituals
in our culture to bring us men into true maturity and adulthood;
the lack of older wiser men in our society to help with this
process...
I hung out with men, joined men's groups;
talked about what it means to be a man, and how sad it is that
there are not many positive role models to look to for advice...
It was all good and necessary at the time.
Nowadays I think of a silly song that I heard once on the "Doctor
Demento show." It was about being on a sailing ship at sea
with "nobody here but men...men...men..."
Anyway, I wonder if we might need to personify
these ideas before we can move closer to "a condition of
consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from
incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated
personification [very nicely worded by the way] ."
Curiously
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Steinerhead wrote:
In a message dated 12/18/03 7:10:35 AM
!First Boot!, pkleonard writes:
Hi Paulina:
I remember going through a mushy "Explore your Feminine
side" phase in the mid-80's -- Lots of new-agey Goddess
stuff (which I still much admire). Then I found "Iron John,"
by Robert Bly -- The deep pool of the yet unconscious, where
"the Wild Man" lives; the power of Masculine energy;
the lack of effective "initiation" rituals in our culture
to bring us men into true maturity and adulthood; the lack of
older wiser men in our society to help with this process...
I hung out with men, joined men's groups; talked about what it
means to be a man, and how sad it is that there are not many
positive role models to look to for advice...
It was all good and necessary at the time. Nowadays I think of
a silly song that I heard once on the "Doctor Demento show."
It was about being on a sailing ship at sea with "nobody
here but men...men...men..."
pkl:
Sounds good doesn't it, Mike? LOL
Anyway, I wonder if we might need to personify
these ideas before we can move closer to "a condition of
consciousness wherein there is _activity_ raying downward from
incomprehensible spiritual dimensions rather than individuated
personification [very nicely worded by the way] ."
pkl:
You, no doubt, are right.
What makes me sad is to see the damage that
has been done to the MEN in our times as all the "Explore
your Feminine side" has become the 'In' thing to do.
Frankly I have felt since the 70s that for
some men it has just been a lot easier to give up on women and
turn to other men to get their emotional and physical needs met
than deal with all that crap. Just my opinion, but, I do think
that many women into the goddess stuff
have so missed the point. Jewish women, on the other hand get
it. They know who is strongest, who lives the longest, who gets
it, yada, yada, so they just let the men think they are boss.
<G> A great dramatization of my point is the relationship
of the Greek husband and wife husband in MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING.
In other words, Real Women know how to handle
their men without de-masculating them, so to speak,and that is
important because women have been scaring the hell out of men
from the beginning. I'm serious now, not joking around. Just
think of what is shown us in the art historical record. Look
at the Venus of Willendorf and tell me it's not scary; awsome,
but, still very scary. She is even headless. Think about that.
see, even from the beginning men have known women have no brains
(ok, so I'm still joking around a bit).
Anyway, serious again...
The first non-instinctive, lesson - cognitive
mankind had to learn was about seasonal time keeping. As early
man scratched out his kindergarden lessons of sun and moon phases
on bones and stones he began to notice a correlation between
the moon cycles and the mysterious menstrual cycles that went
on with his female counterpart. How terrifying that must have
been. Women were somehow mysteriously tied to that orb in the
sky that magically appeared, grew large like the sun, only to
grow smaller, disappear and then be reborn.
Woman also had the capacity to feed the progeny
from her own body that mysteriously came out of in her body,
whereas men had to hunt by hand and kill what sustained their
tribe in the way of food, clothing and tools. The blood of the
hunt and the blood of the menstrual cycle surely was a confusing
mystery.
I do sincerely realize something is trying
to born now in relation to the sexes, but,
I just see this emphasis on gender as a waste of my own personal
time. I'm female this time, I'll be male next time, so what?
In our incarnation, we all carry our _complementary _ sexual
counter part in either our physical or etheric body. So, it seems
to me that obsession with what is resident within the the current
etheric sheath is probably more symptomatic about deeper individual
issues than esoteric concerns. Again, just my opinion, anyway,
I happen to be very pro men, have always had more male friends
all my life than female, like them better, understand them better,
so I guess I'm on theer side. Laught at nothing longer then the
jokes about men and women in conversation as men try to figure
out what "she wants him to say".
Too funny.
Mike, enjoyed your sharing post.
pkl
...................................................................................................................................
From: Steinerhead
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
In a message dated 12/18/03 9:09:56 PM !!!First
Boot!!!, pkleonard writes:
<snip>
I do sincerely realize something is trying
to born now in relation to the sexes, but, I just see this emphasis
on gender as a waste of my own personal time. I'm female this
time, I'll be male next time, so what? In our incarnation, we
all carry our _complementary _ sexual counter part in either
our physical or etheric body. So, it seems to me that obsession
with what is resident within the the current etheric sheath is
probably more symptomatic about deeper individual issues than
esoteric concerns.
<snip>
Wow! I just had an epiphany! You put into
words what I had yet to articulate for myself.
I vaguely remember something from my Jungian
days, something he called our Animus (sp?) Our opposite in gender?
Anyway...didn't the early Gnostics write (Nag
hammadi) about a predominantly feminine divinity. It's been a
while and my memory is taxed -- much goes into dead brain cells...
I think.
I very much enjoyed your post Paulina.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 10:56 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Hi Dottie
Adam 1 is Adam and Adam 2 is Eva.
The reason i used the Adam 1 & 2 was because E. Smith and
Bock used that description.
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 6:53 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
Adam 1 is Adam and Adam 2 is Eva.
The reason i used the Adam 1 & 2 was because E. Smith and
Bock used that description.
Hi Kim,
I am going to have to do more research before
responding about these two Adams and the lines you have found.
I sense a mix up in there and I have a funny feeling where the
mix up is but I need to find these two Adams that Smith and or
Bock speak about. I am looking to see where Dr. STeiner speaks
of them. I need to get a grip on what Genesis book they are speaking
or particular to each Adam.
In regards to the Feminine/Masculine we are
in debt to find them. You are very close in your findings. Its
not about male or female in who we are right now as male and
female rather it has to do with the principles. For some reason
I find that people will put the male line principle as real and
the female line principle as a non important aspect and just
that, an aspect that is not that important. We, our souls follow
this line and we are either corrupt in it or we are not irregardless
of whether at this moment in time we are male or female. This
is absolutely besides the point. We are in need to take on Sophia,
She is not just an understanding rather a Being to be reckoned
with according to our hearts.
I feel the need to print Dr. Steiners Temple
Lodge note to the women. I have looked for this lecture on line
but have not found it. I will recheck Daniels post to see if
he indeed pointed to it. I think in there you will find those
souls aligned soley with the male line who try to thwart the
feminine principle and why they do. Not the particular people
in history rather the idea behind making the feminine principle
unimportant. The game is up, She is shining forth for all to
see. And She will unite with that Christ principle and all will
be done.
Love,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:37 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Dear Kim,
Have you read the Pistis Sophia? Now it seems
to be called The Sophia of Jesus Christ in the newer versions
of the Nag Hammadi.
In here we find the male and female births
of the same names mentioned to one another. I am following it
seems Solomon to Jesus or maybe it is Jesus to Solomon as an
actual incarnation.
In rereading your posts it seems I come to
the thought of the prodigal son for the whole OT to the NT in
a sense. Is this correct? If so this is pretty astounding for
me to consider as I feel we can actually trace the initiations
through one person to the beginning in a sense. Well, actually
5.
I have been looking at the Androgynous (sp)
understandings in a sense. I recall this always seeming to be
such an ugly word or thing when ever I heard it spoken regarding
anyone.
"I want you to know that First Man is
called 'Begetter, Self-perfected Mind. He reflected with Great
Sophia, his consort, and revealed his first begotten, androgynous
son. His 'male name is designated First Begetter Son of God;
his female name, 'First Begettress Sophia, Mother of the Universe.'
Some call her 'Love'. Now First-begotten is called 'Christ.'
This to me reveals ChristSophia as one and
the same in the ultimate regions of our understandings. So, we
have Adam and Eve representing the first revelation and I believe
Jesus and Magdalene representing the second revelation. And it
so seems to me that Hiram and Solomon represent this Jesus and
Baptist relationship as far as I can tell. A lot more studying
but it just keeps coming up in this manner.
I am still looking at Cain and Abel and then
this Seth. My hebrew classes begin again in January and it ocurred
to me this evening to ask for a womans interpretation to this
Genesis. In She Who Dwells Within Lynn Gotlieb actually looks
at the scene where the father is going to sacrifice a son and
interprets it as a little girl and his hand was staid. I am not
sure how she arrived at this it might just be a midrash but it
does speak to the underlying feeling that the feminine is a part
of each and everyone of these mysteries and not just because
the spirit is called feminine. Something more is at work here
and it clearly revealed in the Hebrew language.
Holy Holy Holy,
Dottie
p.s. my Islamic friend said to me today 'thanks
be to Jesus that we only have five prayers a day'. I asked him
what he meant and he shared that it was Jesus who brought the
prayers down to five from the many thousands that Muhammed had
thought he heard God ask for. Each time he came to where Jesus
dwelled, he excitedly told him that he had spoke with God and
each time Jesus told him to go back to God and ask for a lower
number of prayers for his people till it was finally lowered
to five. Thanks be to Jesus was such a nice thing to here today.
Five.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:38 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Divine Sophia
Dear Dottie
I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus where
Christ is born into. See
The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of St. Paul
LECTURE V
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19130101p01.html
it gives a lot of clues.
KIm
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:05 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus
where Christ is born into. See
The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of St. Paul
Hi Kim,
Jeez I did not remember you had a place for
me to check:( Anyhow I have something I have just found that
I find pretty astounding in a sense. I am reading a book by a
Catholic that is rocking my world in that I have never read nor
heard of a Catholic to say although I guess it should not surprise
me for they do tend to go to the Virgin Mary more than others.
I actually just erased most of what I wrote
because I felt a little silly. Do you know that the ark of the
covenant is a woman? I am thinking you do as it is in Revelations
so I did not want to be all revelatory and it already be known")
I guess it was known by me but I never heard a Catholic say such
a thing nor really anyone outside of the esoteric movement. Well,
actually I don't think I have ever heard anyone say it. I realized
it from the Shekinah of the OT and all but I did not know that
Revelations reveals Her as well in the same manner.
And they reveal her as "then God's temple
in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant was seen...A
great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun,
with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve
stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth,
in anguish for delivery' (Revelations 11:19 - 12:22) Hahn states
"John has shown us the ark of the covenant and it is a woman."
When I read this it took me immediately back
to 11 of John. I felt like it screamed out at me in regards to
Magdalene: 'it was a woman!
Anyhow this little book is onto something
even to the point of the 'wife, mother, sister' triality: I mean
he has the Isis in his understanding. Unbelievable. I feel like
I have just really seen the coming of the Sophia for the world.
If a Catholic can say this than anyone can come to this.
Also, if you think, take a look at Mathews
geaneology regarding Jesus. You will find five women who are
mentioned, the fifth being Mary, Jesus' mother. Have you seen
Steiner mention these five women and their connection in any
of your readings? I am also reading a book called The Historical
Mary by Michael Jordan.
Also, I have found the three wisemen of the
NT back in the OT. Does Steiner speak of this that you know of
or maybe Bock or Smith? Also I have found Eve is Gold.
In all of this I am mostly looking to see
if I can connect a Lazarus understanding somewhere.
Also this Seth. Very interesting. Very interesting.
I have a very funny feeling about something shocking. Well at
least to me anyways. Got any intuitions about Seth in your studies?
And it is important to the Abel/Cain understanding and male/female.
Off to do some more reading,
Dottie
p.s. I am reminded that you spoke of MichaelSophia.
I do not have time to check into this yet but I have seen it
as ChristMichaelSophia for a while now although I do not know
why I put the Michael in there from an inner or outer understanding.
I hope I can recall to recheck your posts when I slow down with
the Magdalene/Lazarus stream.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
I think in there you will find those souls
aligned soley with the male line who try to thwart the feminine
principle and why they do. Not the particular people in history
rather the idea behind making the feminine principle unimportant.
While I don't doubt that there is a force
running through human history intent on thwarting the feminine
principle, I somehow dislike the idea that specific souls are
consistently (through a series of incarnations) on one side of
the issue. Firstly there is Steiner's statement that the greatest
number of instances that he had ever observed of one (soul is
the wrong word, with soul we usually refer to the astral, it
is the spirit that is eternal) individual incarnating in the
same gender repeatedly was seven, and that was an exceptional
case. Steiner was quite specific that everyone, yes everyone,
in all cases, incarnated alternating between male and female,
with only very exceptional instances of even two back to back
incarnations of one gender. If anyone thinks that they are equal
to Christian Rosenkreuz and therefore can go multiple incarnations
in the same gender, I will certainly abstain from judging them
from my limited insight.
The force working against the feminine principle
I would consider similar to the forces working against other
progressive human strivings: one or more Ahrimanic or Luciferic
beings (or perhaps a combination of both). Their task is to mislead
the incarnated human on this issue, and by all accounts they
have been quite successful. As I see it, the eternal ego of any
specific individual, once they have passed beyond death and Kamalocha
is beyond the influence of such beings, and thus incapable of
carrying these impulses in Devachan. So for the greater part
of life between death and rebirth, an individual is beyond masculine
and feminine, and beyond taking sides on the issue. Once they
incarnate again, they are again subject to all manner of temptations
and errors, and may even make the same mistake as they made before
and find themselves again alligned against the feminine. However,
I would argue that this is not because they carried the impulse
with them as an integral part of their being from one life to
the next, but because they fell into the same error as they had
in their previous life.
So I would caution against personalizing impulses
and forces in history. Usually the forces are far greater than
the indiviuals who find themselves representing them.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Daniel wrote:
So I would caution against personalizing impulses and forces
in history. Usually the forces are far greater than the indiviuals
who find themselves representing them.
Hi Daniel,
Steiner mentioned in the lecture I am speaking
of that the Freemasons intentionally manifested themselves into
their next incarnation on account of this feminine/masculine
war in a sense.
So, if I understand you correctly, correct
me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to
the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?
I'd be interested in knowing if you have a
thought as to whom this feminine principle stream incarnation
has been throughout the OT and the NT? For it must be spoken
of there. Any ideas?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:40 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
I think you are getting near. Sophia is the mother of Jesus
where Christ is born into.
Dear Kim,
In looking at the lecture you recommended
it seems I find this:
This sister soul is connected to the Luke
Jesus, is this correct? Yet it is also actually the mother, not
only from a physical standpoint of the particular moment but
also since the beginning of time, correct? We are speaking of
the Sophia and Christ as one and the same and they coinicided
here on Earth right? And is this your understanding regarding
the Paul Epistle Lecture?
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
I think you are getting near. Sophia is
the mother of Jesus where Christ is born into.
Dear Kim,
Okay. A possible for Lazarus, and I say this
because I am really really trying to find his line, is Aaron.
Do you see this? Maryam is Moses and Aarons sister. It is the
only place you will find a Maryam in the OT. And both of the
siblings are punished. They have a connection with one another
that they do not seem to have with Moses although they accompany
him. Have you seen that anywhere in your Lazarus travels? Again,
I do not have a feeling for it rather just an outer looking to
see kind of moment. I think none of them make it to the promise
land that can recall at this moment. I am not positive about
Aaron.
Also, I am wondering if you have thought of
the 'tree' that was Adam sat under when the Lord found him? It
seems to me, although I do not know which Adam this is at the
moment, we find this same tree with Jesus and the same kind of
knowledge no longer available to man. There is a new way.
In regards to the sister soul you call 2Adam/Eve
do you see this with Christian Rosenkruz? It seems to me that
Steiner alludes to this in the Epistles and Paul lecture. Did
you find that as well? This sister soul that was held back, I
have a vision, not literal as in ethereal vision, of this babe
within the twelve during the fourteenth (?) century? Can you
see that? It seems we have this sister soul with Zarathustra
and then again with the Luke Jesus. What's interesting to me
is the idea that the Shekinah is the one who accompanies mankind
on his most important journeys as related to this Rozencruz doing
the same.
Also in Isaiah we find Isaiah sawing himself
in two. Splitting the male from the female with the saw serving
as the Word. I have a few more references regarding this female
into male understanding I will share in a bit.
All good things,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and
(especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little
understanding of the importance of the feminine. Hence, what
is found there concerning the feminine tends to be "between
the lines" as it were. Important allegorical supplementary
material is available in the form of the Classic Jewish Folktales.
Micha Josef Bin Gorion collected these in central Europe in the
mid to late 19th Century much in the same manner as the brothers
Grimm. There is much true in these tales, and they expand upon
the creation stories, Cain and Abel, etc. Steiner refered to
them occasionally. I would look there for an understanding of
the feminie in the OT. A translated version of these tales is
available from amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253311586
To answer your question directly, in the OT
the feminine stream is represented by Abel - not Abel as an individual
person, but Abel as a pictoral representation of a certain type
of human being. All of Genesis is to be read as an allegory,
and not as literal fact. Names are indicitive of tendencies that
many individuals manifested at one point or another (even and
especially Adam and Eve). After the Flood the OT moves into the
historical. Solomon - an actual individual, and thus simultaneously
both archetypal and factual - is also representative of the feminine
stream.
So, if I understand you correctly, correct
me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to
the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?
Actually, I meant that those who unjustly
hold back the feminine are working under the influence of a Luciferic
and/or Ahrimanic misunderstanding.
Steiner mentioned in the lecture I am speaking
of that the Freemasons intentionally manifested themselves into
their next incarnation on account of this feminine/masculine
war in a sense.
I reread the lecture in question. That the
Fremasons were aligned on one side of the conflict was quite
clear. As such, to me they represent "indiviuals who find
themselves representing... forces are far greater than [themselves]".
I feel we must see the forces (such as Freemasonry) as separate
and above the individuals who work in that stream. That an individual
freemason may have incarnated to a specific destiny with specific
anti-feminine goals is probable. However, I don't see that same
individual reincarnating again as a Freemason and again with
the same goals. That individual would likely have some karmic
balancing to do, and probably would be working in a pro-feminine
manner in their next incarnation. Others would be continuing
the work of Freemasonry, and the former Freemason might even
find himself opposing them!
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
--- Daniel
Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and
(especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little
understanding of the importance of the feminine.
Dear Daniel,
I actually used to feel this way until just
recently. What I find mostly is that it is todays man who does
not see Sophia yet sees the Christ. The ancients knew.
The most recent discussions on this list between
you, Rick, Kim and others has led me to Genesis and a deeper
search for Sophia past Magdalene, Mary and Jesus and John the
Baptist and Judas. I find them to very aware of the Feminine
Divine and the men who so embraced Wisdom. To the point that
when men were behaving so badly Jermiah took the Ark and hid
the Shekinah. Not until possibly Revelations do we see an out
and out outward manifestation of Her. Yet the greatest of the
greatest Prophets betook of Her Essence. Jesus speaks of her
clearly which means the Apostles knew. She is more precious than
Gold and man must divine to her.
What has been mystifying me even more so is
the Jewish idea that God has turned away from his people. I am
not sure if this is prevalent amongst most Jewish people or just
a few or maybe just certain divisions but I keep coming up against
'God has turned away from us'. I find that so outrageous lately.
And if it is a cross the board feeling I would say its because
the Ark of the Covenant was hidden in some understanding.
Daniel
I would look there for an understanding of the feminie in
the OT. A translated version of these tales is available from
amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0253311586
Dottie
I don't get these tales. I never have. Even
now I seem to get the Bible so much easier. I don't know why.
Thanks for the link I will check them out again to see if I can't
somehow understand what is being said.
Daniel
To answer your question directly, in the OT the feminine stream
is represented by Abel - not Abel as an individual person, but
Abel as a pictoral representation of a certain type of human
being.
Dottie
Okay. It's funny seeing you write that about
Abel. It never matters to me who says a thing I must find it
myself for some reason. I guess thats a good thing to a point.
And thanks for chiming in so I can get some feedback. It just
allows me to set the course in a sense.
Daniel
All of Genesis is to be read as an allegory, and not as literal
fact.
Dottie
I don't hold Abel or even Cain as facts in
a sense. I seem to find the first real human humans are at Noah
and his Ark so far.
As far as your statement above I mostly take
things from the spiritual level and not literal. However I do
believe for every answer we have, we can find the reference in
the Bible. There can not be one missing. I am not so interested
in who was female and so forth I am searching for ChristSophia
throughout.
Either we are finding her in reoccuring beings
or whenever She is around beings take on a similar way of being.
Although it would make sense to have one - three lines tell the
story through initiation that begins at the beginning. It's funny
the Jews were't able to make the leap to the Messiah as a whole
and so we have a split. The half that was able to make the leap
wrote the NT. I wonder what the breakdown of Messiah is? Probably
male female. Maybe not although from annointing one to annointed
one it would seem we would have passive and agressive within
both words. God, Hebrew is so important to show the physical
way to people.
Daniel
Names are indicitive of tendencies that many individuals manifested
at one point or another (even and especially Adam and Eve). After
the Flood the OT moves into the historical. Solomon - an actual
individual, and thus simultaneously both archetypal and factual
- is also representative of the feminine stream.
Dottie
Okay. Thanks so much Daniel. It's so funny
because I drive my self to all this reading and interpreting
and meditating and so forth to get this. I am interested to know
if you found this in Steiner or in the Bible first? The reason
I ask is because I want to share this knowledge with those who
wouldn't ever think to read Dr. Steiner or Mr. Smith or Mr. Bock.
I need to find it in the Bible and when you confirm things for
me I realize I am on the right path. It becomes self evident
in a sense when matched with Steiner who I always use as a confirmer.
Daniel, maybe you can help me. I can not get
which part of Genesis refers to Adam 1 and Adam 2. Also I would
like to know what you think on this Seth?
Dottie
So, if I understand you correctly, correct
me if I am wrong, the Feminine is to hold us back according to
the Luciferic/Ahrimanic stream of things?
Daniel
Actually, I meant that those who unjustly hold back the feminine
are working under the influence of a Luciferic and/or Ahrimanic
misunderstanding.
Dottie
Okay got it.
Daniel
That an individual freemason may have incarnated to a specific
destiny with specific anti-feminine goals is probable. However,
I don't see that same individual reincarnating again as a Freemason
and again with the same goals.
Dottie
You don't think they can as a whole, similar
to Christian Rosencruz's group, look to thwart this till the
end of time? I realize they would have karma and so forth to
balance but it seems they make have walked themselves to the
wildside in a sense thinking they can meet with Christ in the
end. I still do not understand the whole point, if they are a
Christic minded group why they feel it so nessessary for this
masculine thing to win. The only thought that comes to mind is
that they wish to push the Mind to the forefront over the Spirit.
Although they do seem to have made some adjustments and maybe
in that course or maybe their twistedness of it lost their mystery
and what it was originally worth. And maybe once they hit the
spiritual worlds after the physical death they had a choice and
or realization and could as you said in a sense to take up the
opposite pole.
Thanks again Daniel,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:03 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Okay. Thanks so much Daniel. It's so funny
because I drive my self to all this reading and interpreting
and meditating and so forth to get this. I am interested to know
if you found this in Steiner or in the Bible first? The reason
I ask is because I want to share this knowledge with those who
wouldn't ever think to read Dr. Steiner or Mr. Smith or Mr. Bock.
I need to find it in the Bible and when you confirm things for
me I realize I am on the right path. It becomes self evident
in a sense when matched with Steiner who I always use as a confirmer.
In all modesty I must confess that I came
to this understanding first through Emil Bock. The Bible frankly
made no sense to me before then. I had lived with the pictures
from childhood, and they were beautiful, but when I tried to
understand them with my literal and factual mind, I was only
frustrated, and the more so because I trusted my reason over
the beautiful pictures. When I read Bock's book on Genesis it
was an epiphany. Later I read piece by piece in Steiner the parts
that inspired Bock's book, and my understanding was further enhanced.
I read the Bible carefully after that, and found myself agreeing
with what I had learned.
As to presenting these ideas to people unwilling
or unable to make the effort to read Bock or Steiner, I find
that you can at best plant a seed that might one day lead them
in that direction. You can do this easily if you memorize Bock's
arguments for his (and Steiner's) interpretation. For example,
Genesis must be allegorical because the sun was not created on
the first or day second day. If these were literal days, how
was the time they measured? After all, we measure time by the
earth's rotation around the sun. There are several such "hummm"
points that Bock brings up, such as the difference between "God"
the Elohim (plural in the Hebrew) mentioned a the beginning of
Genesis and "God" Jehova (singular masculine) later.
I don't have the book handy, but you can find them. Bringing
them up in conversation as questions can be interesting.
Daniel, maybe you can help me. I can not
get which part of Genesis refers to Adam 1 and Adam 2. Also I
would like to know what you think on this Seth?
This is clear in Bock, though I have neither
Bock nor the Bible handy. I seem to remember that Genesis 1:1-1:18
is Adam 1 and 1:19 on is Adam 2. If you read carefully you'll
find the creation of Adam and Eve told twice, and is based on
this retelling that the designation Adam 1 and 2 is made. The
modern theological explanation is that Genesis is a hodg-podge
of oral traditions, not even authored by Moses, but collected
by him, hence the inconsistency.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Dottie,
The following is what I was trying to get at:
The writers of the OT and especilly parts of the NT didn't emphasize
the importance of the feminine. However, in as much as they recorded
the facts, the feminine is definately to be found. They might
not place Magdalene on center stage and praise her role, but
since she is mentioned it becomes possible for us reading the
Gospels to reconstruct the scene and put the emphasis where we
feel it belongs. Many of the personalities described in the OT
and NT definately had an understanding of the feminine stream.
However, the writers of those texts generally placed little emphasis
on this. I find it a very interesting question to consider how
the personalities of the Evangelists colored their retelling
of events. Another question much discussed is how Paul's personality
formed the outer structures of the Christian church and how that
does or does not represent what Christ actually intended.
Daniel Hindes
--- Daniel
Dottie,
The Bible, both OT and NT, was written primarily by men, and
(especially for parts of the NT) arguably by men who had little
understanding of the importance of the feminine.
Dear Daniel,
I actually used to feel this way until just recently. What I
find mostly is that it is todays man who does not see Sophia
yet sees the Christ. The ancients knew.
The most recent discussions on this list between you, Rick, Kim
and others has led me to Genesis and a deeper search for Sophia
past Magdalene, Mary and Jesus and John the Baptist and Judas.
I find them to very aware of the Feminine Divine and the men
who so embraced Wisdom. To the point that when men were behaving
so badly Jermiah took the Ark and hid the Shekinah. Not until
possibly Revelations do we see an out and out outward manifestation
of Her. Yet the greatest of the greatest Prophets betook of Her
Essence. Jesus speaks of her clearly which means the Apostles
knew. She is more precious than Gold and man must divine to her.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Dottie:
You don't think they can as a whole, similar to Christian Rosencruz's
group, look to thwart this till the end of time?
Actually, no. I see the actual stream as being
the responsibility of a spiritual being. The individuals that
are involved with that stream, even the most important individuals,
are involved for only a limited time. Unnamed freemasons were
involved in their effort for only a limited time. They have moved
on, and are now working in other ways.
Christian Rosencreuz will evolve, his tasks
will change, and he will take on new things as they become necessary
for human advancement. This individuality is notable for being
on the forefront of development, but even he does not work by
exactly the same method each incarnation.
I still do not understand the whole point,
if they are a Christic minded group why they feel it so nessessary
for this masculine thing to win.
If something veers to the left, you must push
it to the right to get it back to the center. The masculine principle
in spiritual striving was weak, and needed reinforcing. For a
while, a force for the masculine was necessary. This was true
starting about 3000 BC until by the early 18th Century (according
to Steiner) it was no longer necessary (same lecture, October
23rd 1905). Anyone still pushing to the left, as it were, is
no longer working progressively in human development, but in
a regressive manner. Evil is good at the wrong time.
The spiritual being responsible for Freemasonry
has moved on to other tasks, and any strivings in that old manner
are now animated by beings who work as hindering forces (Luciferic
and Ahrimanic) and not as progressive ones [I should note that
that last sentence is strictly my interpretation]. Thus any individuals
still working in that manner are under the influence of hindering
forces.
I have already stated my case for why I feel
that the individuals do not carry the impulse of Freemasonry
from one life to another. Indeed, I feel that those still working
to this day in the manner described are actually different individuals
than the original Freemasons.
Daniel Hindes
Daniel
That an individual freemason may have incarnated
to a specific destiny with specific anti-feminine goals is probable.
However, I don't see that same individual reincarnating again
as a Freemason and again with the same goals.
Dottie
You don't think they can as a whole, similar to Christian Rosencruz's
group, look to thwart this till the end of time? I realize they
would have karma and so forth to balance but it seems they make
have walked themselves to the wildside in a sense thinking they
can meet with Christ in the end. I still do not understand the
whole point, if they are a Christic minded group why they feel
it so nessessary for this masculine thing to win. The only thought
that comes to mind is that they wish to push the Mind to the
forefront over the Spirit. Although they do seem to have made
some adjustments and maybe in that course or maybe their twistedness
of it lost their mystery and what it was originally worth. And
maybe once they hit the spiritual worlds after the physical death
they had a choice and or realization and could as you said in
a sense to take up the opposite pole.
Thanks again Daniel,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:29 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Dear Dottie
The sister soul which is held back, is Sophia, and the reason
she was held back from incarnating, was that she didn't need
to incarnate, except once, to facilitate Christ on Earth and
to aquire it's ego, which you only can on earth. She got through
a development we only can gues at (with the help of Steiner,
and others).
Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration to the gospels, and
she was again with Christian Rosencreuz,
in his syntesizing of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level
of course, where also Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve
here as she was at the time of Golgatha.
Shekinah, as the visible representation of God, sounds like Adam2
(the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia before Golgatha.
Adam 1/John the Baptist is representing Sophia, as he did through
Raphael.
In the John Gospel you can follow sophia through 'Mother of Jesus'
accompagnied by the pictures of Raphael.
Sincerely,
Kim
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:27 am
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Kim Munch Michelsen wrote:
The sister soul which is held back, is
Sophia, and the reason she was held back from incarnating, was
that she didn't need to incarnate, except once, to facilitate
Christ on Earth and to aquire it's ego, which you only can on
earth. She got through a development we only can gues at (with
the help of Steiner, and others).
Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration
to the gospels, and she was again with Christian Rosencreuz,
in his syntesizing of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level
of course, where also Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve
here as she was at the time of Golgatha.
Shekinah, as the visible representation
of God, sounds like Adam2 (the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia
before Golgatha.
Adam 1/John the Baptist is representing
Sophia, as he did through Raphael.
In the John Gospel you can follow sophia
through 'Mother of Jesus' accompagnied by the pictures of Raphael.
Sincerely,
Kim
Bradford comments;
Now that is really fine, fine work Kim...
Now to study the great Virgin Star Queen that guides us through
the higher Initiation in 'The Chymical Wedding', who commands
the other side of the threshold party and maintains the discipline
of the rowdy bunch who having crossed the threshold, either from
Initation or weaving in thought and Pride, come to the Feather
of Maat and the new form of karmic weighing with all our lingering
personality thorns.
In this weighing and hanging party of Hers,
the new ethnic collapse of Racial groups, the breakdown of Etheric
group lines were in preparation for a new paradigm. Study 'The
Chymical Wedding' and you will be able to discern, as Kim so
rightly has done. That now the scales of Justice have shifted
to the Ego and I AM substance of the humility and severity of
how Sophia looks deeply into our own karmic work. Judge not lest
ye be Judged. Rosenkreuz gets the worst job in the world, he
thinks, to be the Guardian of the Threshold of the entire Age
of Light and all that Science can come up with.
Because as the future goes, we are heading
for the Judge and the gifts that the I AM has humbly won will
be seen by the Starry Queen. Starry Virgin Queen sees all and
is truly the hostess with the Mostess. Only I would be cautious
about accepting an Invitation to such a party. Always insert
this paradigm, We're not worthy, we're not worthy, we're not
worthy! For this is everyday a truth to hold close to our hearts.
Better be the most hidden rose that grows and quiet within the
safety of the Kings Garden than blowin dust in the wind.
We have hardly imagined the Archai Initiation
and 13th Century Initiation model that Christian Rosenkreuz went
through with the 12 Bodhisattva and Initiates of the various
cultural periods. That Rosenkreuz would become the transparent,
Star Child of the Christ, human prototype. The wisdom made him
transparent and if you look closely at the Embyro Child in the
end of 2001 a Space Odyssey, you will see that Kubrick was thinking
in the Guardian of the Threshold vision.
Later Rosenkreuz sends his post card to Francis
Bacon's friend Johann Valentin Andrae. It is interesting to see
the adjustment of Education and how really inspired Shakespeare's
plays. It wasn't Francis Bacon. Rosenkreuz was working on the
advanced remaking of the fallen human gene.. The Immortal Phantom
model, newly minted from the works in the upper floors where
He and his brother kindred souls, fashioned the new Phoenix Fire
of Resurrection bodies of the New Adam, much talked about by
St. Paul. It is a vision into the Workshop of the highest Initiates,
Woman and Men incarnations that worked to Serve the new Sophia
School of the I AM. Into the new molds wrought by the deed of
Christ on Earth, seeds of the future I AM will begin to show
their own inner clarity as the Sixth Epoch approaches.
Welcome to the School of Sophia.
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie
zold
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Bradford wrote:
That Rosenkreuz would become the transparent, Star Child of
the Christ, human prototype.
Hi Bradford, Kim, Daniel and All,
This Star Child, does this relate to Hirams
son?
Thanks,
Dottie
Continues
in another thread
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 7:15 pm
Subject: Re: Divine Sophia
Kim wrote:
Sophia was with Lazarus/John as inspiration to the gospels,
and she was again with Christian Rosencreuz, in his syntesizing
of the new wisdom, at the spiritual level of course, where also
Zaratustra acted. She was between the twelve here as she was
at the time of Golgatha.
Dear Kim,
I sense we can all take on the Sophia. I sense
her as a covering of sorts. Steiner used a word for John the
Baptist to explain this phenomena but I can not recall exactly
what it is. I sense Sophia as always having been here. I do not
sense Sophia seperate than Shekinah. I sense Her as the Daughter
Voice of God. I believe or rather think that certain beings have
brought Her with them in a sense for they had already attained
Her yoke. And these particular biographies show us how to take
on the Sophia as well as guide man forward in our evolution.
This seems to be a bit different than how you sense it I believe.
And it seems to take on the different energy of mother, wife,
daughter.
In looking at some art today I found it curious
to see John the Baptist as a man standing along side the Christ
and Magdalene on the other side of the Christ. John is carrying
a cross of sorts, what I really think he is carrying is a form
of 'asherah' which is a symbol of Sophia. Not only that but I
have a funny feeling this is the same cross symbol that the Popes
carry as well. And the Trees which is a part of where this word
'asherah' comes from is in many of the art pictures as well.
Asherah signifies Ashtara/Ishtar. The women would come and bedeck
this 'tree' with ornaments and so forth. I almost am thinking
it is our Christmas tree today. I am not so sure though but I
am looking at it a bit in my travels.
I have a question for you. How was John the
Baptist raised? In what manner? Have you seen it discussed anywhere?
I have not. It seems to me that Steiner says 'then John was the
oversoul', oh okay, that is the word I was trying to think of
for Sophia, and that was it. I am not trying to be stubborn about
this Lazarus but I am trying to understand and I keep coming
up empty. There is nothing I have seen so far nor felt that connects
this physical being to one in the past. I want to leave you with
John 11 before I sign off. If you have not tired of this subject
I would like to look at it again with something that keeps coming
back for me.
John 11:1 NOW a certain MAN was sick, NAMED Lazarus,of Bethany,the
town of MARY and her sister Martha.
John 11:2 (It was THAT Mary, which annointed
the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose
brother Lazarus was sick.)
Now, why is it that the paranthesis is here?
Why would they be speaking of something that has not happened
yet? We know this happens in Luke but not yet here in John. And
definitely not under the name of Magdalene.
Also looking in John we find Jesus at Jacobs
well with a woman carrying a water pot.(Magdalenes singnature)
I believe this is Magdalene and he also calls her 'Woman'.(John
4:21) I am reading a book that coincides with the word 'Woman'
and Eve, with Adam saying he would call her 'Woman' which then
relates to Jesus calling his Mother 'Woman' hence Eve.
Now, if I recall correctly, I could be wrong
I will have to check John again, but Steiner says this 'Woman'
was the first to have people believe in Christ Jesus without
the people having seen or heard him themselves. I believe he
was speaking how the word of Jesus really spread through the
little people.
The other interesting point is this 'well',
where the water was drawn, had no longer any water after Miriam
of the OT, or so at least I have been told by my Jewish friend
a few months back. I will have to ask him again at what point
the prophecy said the water would resume.
With the idea of you and me and we can be,
sounds like a song:) I don't see it as Lazarus. I see it as John
the Baptist and Magdalene that it was through each of them that
this Christ mystery came to fruition. So, I see Magdalene taking
on the John the Baptist spirit to help annoint the Christ. For
how would Lazarus annoint the Christ? (And the annointing is
mentioned even before the rising happens) First of all he did
not it was Magdalene. But for what would John the Baptist come
back for unless it was to help with this final act. The disciples
still did not have any understanding up until the last day. That
does not say alot for John the Baptist as oversoul. It is Magdalene
that gets it and I think it comes down to her having two portions
in the same manner as Elija and Elisha. She gets it and we can
see it through the annointing. She annointed the annointer. I
do not know how to see it any other way at this point but I am
still searching.
In regards to John the disciple I have to
say I have just recently read a book related to be his in the
Nag Hammadi. It sounds nothing like the John of the Gospel. Not
even in the least. I guess this is another point for me, regarding
John the disciple and John the Baptist as one in your understanding
or rather John the disciple and Lazarus, as being hard to bring
together.
My thoughts on this rainy evening,
Love,
Dottie
p.s.
Kim wrote:
Shekinah, as the visible representation of God, sounds like
Adam2 (the glory of Krishna), that is, Sophia before Golgatha.
Dottie
I have been thinking about Krishna and Arjuna
in this vein.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Kim Munch Michelsen
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 4:49 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Divine Sophia
Dear Dottie
The Mother of Jesus, especially in the Gospel of John, is Sophia,
and 'Mother of Jesus' is the name for the spirit which Christ
is born into.
Sophia is the highest developed being on Earth, in the same way
as the Holy Spirit is the highest developed being on the moon,
Christ on the Sun, and the Father on Saturn.
So, as the Father is higher and earlier than Christ, and Christ
higher and earlier than the Holy Spirit, so is the Holy Spirit
higher and earlier than Sophia.
And that is not bad at all!
You see, if Sophia was higher developed than the Father or Christ,
she would just be a theoretical being, you would have no chance
to reach.
She is the devine being closest to man, she is the first you
can reach, and the even higher spirits works through her.
We had the Trinity when we had the three fold man, now we have
the four fold man and we have the quatrinity consisting of Father,
Christ, Holy Spirit, and Sophia.
Concerning the feminine aspect: I believe that, when the Earth-evolution
is finished, Sophia and Adam i rejoined so both aspect is together
again.
Magdalene and Lazarus/John is showing for all mankind, that it
is possible, she is you and he is me, as we can be.
Sincerely,
Kim
In looking at the lecture you recommended
it seems I find this:
This sister soul is connected to the Luke
Jesus, is this correct? Yet it is also actually the mother, not
only from a physical standpoint of the particular moment but
also since the beginning of time, correct? We are speaking of
the Sophia and Christ as one and the same and they coinicided
here on Earth right? And is this your understanding regarding
the Paul Epistle Lecture?
Sincerely,
Dottie
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
December 2003/January
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
