Popular Spirituality
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 1:23 pm
Subject: popular spirituality
I've been watching some of these pop-spirituality on American
talk shows: Oprah ("Remember your Spirit"), Rosanne
(her Kabbalah wisdom) etc. Money caresses you like a puppy.....
The Norwegian-Danish Waldorf teacher, poet,
author, and bohemian Hans Jørgen Høinæs (1945-2001),
published a delightful book in 1997 entitled "Mellom New
Age og Teknopolis" - "Between New Age and Technopolis".
It might as well have been called "Between Lucifer and Ahriman."
In Technopolis, the art of medicine is based upon the skills
of the mechanic; the human body is a machine where parts only
need to be replaced or repaired. A young man develops heart trouble
and gets fixed up by having a pig's heart implanted. And then
he takes a young lady out for a romantic candle-light dinner,
and on the top of the menu, as the special of the week, he is
offered pigs' hearts in cream sauce. Feeling hot about his date,
he doesn't quite know how to put it - "My swine-heart is
pumping for you" - ?
Anyway, Høinæs says that one
of the problems with New Age is the heritage of Alice Bailey,
leading to channeling and all that. But there's more to Luciferic
New Age. It's this love yourself thing, and everything will fall
into place and you'll be rich and happy and harmonious and fulfilled
and so on and so on.....
Rudolf Steiner represents a sharp contrast
to all of this. He says somewhere (reference anybody?) that one
of the reasons why Anthroposophy will never be popular (in its
honest and genuine form of course) is that it rests upon the
cognition of the deep and uncomfortable truth that all existence
arises out of suffering, and that the evolution of love is impossible
without pain and suffering.
Here are a couple of quotes. The first is
taken from the a lecture held February 8, 1912 (GA 130) entitled
"Facing
Karma"
Even a simple consideration
of life between birth and death can lead to this view. If we
look at the totality of life, however, and if we face our karma
as it has been explained in the lecture two days ago, we will
come to the conclusion that all pain that hits us, that all suffering
that comes our way, are of such a nature that they are being
sought by our shortcomings. By far the greater part of our pain
and suffering is sought by imperfections that we have brought
over from previous incarnations. Since we have these imperfections
within ourselves, there is a wiser man in us than we ourselves
are who chooses the road to pain and suffering. It is, indeed,
one of the golden rules of life that we all carry in us a wiser
man than we ourselves are, a much wiser man. The one to whom
we say, “I,” in ordinary life is less wise. If it was
left to this less wise person in us to make a choice between
pain and joy, he would undoubtedly choose the road toward joy.
But the wiser man is the one who reigns in the depth of our unconscious
and who remains inaccessible to ordinary consciousness. He directs
our gaze away from easy enjoyment and kindles in us a magic power
that seeks the road of pain without our really knowing it. But
what is meant by the words: Without really knowing it? They mean
that the wiser man in us prevails over the less wise one. He
always acts in such a way that our shortcomings are guided to
our pains and he makes us suffer because with every inner and
outer suffering we eliminate one of our faults and become transformed
into something better.
The second quote is taken from the previously
mentioned lecture "Love and
its Meaning in the World" (Zurich, 17th December, 1912 -
GA 143)
When we speak of karma, we
mean that which as cause in the one life has its effects in the
next. In terms of cause and effect we cannot, however, speak
truly of love; we cannot speak of a deed of love and its eventual
compensation. True, if there is a deed, there will be a compensation,
but this has nothing to do with love. Deeds of love do not look
for compensation in the next life.
Suppose, for example, that
we work and our work brings gain. It may also be that our work
gives us no joy because we do it simply in order to pay off debts,
not for actual reward. We can imagine that in this way a man
has already spent what he is now earning through his work. He
would prefer to have no debts, but as things are, he is obliged
to work in order to pay them. Now let us apply this example to
our actions in general. By everything we do out of love we pay
off debts. From an occult point of view, what is done out of
love brings no reward but makes amends for profit already expended.
The only actions from which we have nothing in the future are
those we perform out out of true, genuine love. This truth may
well be disquieting and men are lucky in that they know nothing
of it in their upper consciousness. But in their subconsciousness
all of them know it, and that is why deeds of love are done so
unwillingly, why there is so little love in the world. Men feel
instinctively that they may expect nothing for their "I"
in the future from deeds of love. An advanced stage of development
must have been reached before the soul can experience joy in
performing deeds of love from which there is nothing to be gained
for itself. The impulse for this is not strong in humanity. But
occultism can be a source of powerful incentives to deeds of
love.
I'd like us to contrast this with the sugarsweet
Luciferic dr. Feelgood spirituality that we're being bombarded
with in the media, the Shirley McClaine stuff and the like -
the things that get so much thundering applause on the TV talk
shows, because it's what people want to hear.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a great fan of Shriley
McClaine as an actress; she's one of my all-time favorites, but
she should stick to acting and broadway stage entertainment etc
where she really knows what she's doing. because she really stinks
as a New Age guru.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:56 pm
Subject: Shirley McLaine
Tajei wrote:
I'd like us to contrast this with the sugarsweet
Luciferic dr. Feelgood spirituality that we're being bombarded
with in the media, the Shirley McClaine stuff and the like -
the things that get so much thundering applause on the TV talk
shows, because it's what people want to hear.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a great fan of
Shriley McClaine as an actress; she's one of my all-time favorites,
but she should stick to acting and broadway stage entertainment
etc where she really knows what she's doing. because she really
stinks as a New Age guru.
OOOOOO! TAZ - Now you done it!!
Lay off my soul sister!!!!! She is NOT in
the same category as Oprah or Rosie. Her book "The Camino"
was really wonderful - selling for all of $1.98 at Barnes &
Noble.
And even if all of her "revelations"
are not up to snuff, the very fact that she has been and is a
spiritual seeker and that she has been brave enough to share
this with the world is absolutely remarkable. Can any of us here
say that we have been where she has been and done what she has
done. And the purpose that all of these women seem to have is
to bring spiritual questions to the mass population which needs
to be done whether or not it is "right" or perfect.
They have been forefront in keeping spiritual questions and needs
out there for examination. Are these things just for the "spiritual
elite" - like Anthroposophists - to discuss???? It's like
saying "Don't try to bring Shakespeare to inner city kids
because they don't have the cultural background to understand
it."
Let's not get off all the time on being so
"holier than thou" about what is Luciferic and what
is not. The very gesture of judgementalism is in itself Luciferic.
You can read her work and say this point or that point may be
on target or not, but to generally say that she should not be
doing it at all is really your own egotism at its highest. There
seems to be a real thread of this in this group and it is not
something that I personally DO NOT LIKE! Saying "but she
should stick to acting and broadway stage entertainment etc where
she really knows what she's doing. because she really stinks
as a New Age guru." Sounds an awful lot like "the little
woman should stay in the kitchen where she belongs." Bullshit.
(Thank you Sophie)
Watching "Out On A Limb" with my
parents not long before they died led to one of the only real
spiritual discussion that we ever had, where I was able to tell
them about the things I believe in.
Wet raspberries and ten lashes with a wet
noodle!
Christine
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:58 pm
Subject: PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY OF HER BOOKS???
(This time, I AM shouting)
Christine
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:02 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
At 23:58 16.11.2003, Christine wrote:
HAVE YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY OF HER BOOKS???
(This time, I AM shouting)
No, you got me there: I haven't, and I just
love your shouts. But I won't lay off your 'soul sister.' I've
read excerpts and reviews - one of those reviews was written
by Linn Ullmann (Liv Ullmann's daughter who kinda grew up in
Hollywood) who concluded that one of Shirley's books should never
have been translated into Norwegian because it was so dumb. And
I had to agree when I found out that she had devoted chapter
upon chapter to a sprained ankle of hers as she was kicking back
in her fancy Malibu mansion, saying that this ankle had something
to do with all the suffering in the world.
And I did watch "Out on a Limb"
sometime in the 1980's. It was so boring. No, give me "Some
Came Running" with her and Sinatra instead. Shirley is one
of the few and rare top character actresses who just happen to
be movie stars. I grew up in the theater and know what I'm talking
about. I love her on the screen.
I've listened to her interrupting her show
on stage and start philosophizing. Our differences don't count,
because we're all one common soup of consciousness. And one spiritual
consciousness is just as good as any other, even if we live we
entirely different inner realities. That's not Lucifer; it's
Ahriman who wants everyone to gain a clairvoyance where nobody
sees what anybody else sees, leading to chaos and separation.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
Gee, I haven't actually read any of Steiner's
books - they're SOoooo boring! ) And difficult to read, too!
But I've read lots of excerpts and I heard
from the daughter of a famous actress that they're real dumb!
: ) Christine
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 16, 2003 8:39 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
At 01:29 17.11.2003, you wrote:
Gee, I haven't actually read any of Steiner's books - they're
SOoooo boring! ) And difficult to read, too!
But I've read lots of excerpts and I heard from the daughter
of a famous actress that they're real dumb!
: ) Christine
I was wrong. Hail Shirley, Herald of the New
Epoch!
Tarjei
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Nov 17, 2003 3:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
Thank you, thank you - and accepting this
award, I'd like to thank all the little people who made it possible.
And thank you to my mother, my father, my second grade teacher
......
: ) Christine
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
At 12:46 17.11.2003, Christine wrote:
Thank you, thank you - and accepting this
award, I'd like to thank all the little people who made it possible.
And thank you to my mother, my father, my second grade teacher
......
A buddy of mine always quotes Frank Zappa,
so I keep referring to him as his spiritual teacher.
Why not give us some philosophical and spiritual
Shirley-quotes and tell us what they mean to you?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
............................................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
Hi Tarjei and Christine,
I have to say that I finally broke down and
bought her book Dancing as fast as I can or maybe it was
Out on a Limb I can not recall a few years back. What
I do recall is that she did indeed touch a truth about spiritual
connection that allowed me to divine to an understanding of how
we stay connected body to spirit.
I really don't have a doubt that she has actually
had some enlightening moments and was hoping to inspire others
to open up. I could feel it in her book that what she was sharing
she experienced and that is pretty wonderful for anyone to have
such experiences I think.
I think people jumped on the 'actress can't
say anything that really makes any sense' bandwagon and she was
ridiculed to the heavens. And she is beautiful. Yeah, she tends
to use any opportunity to share this wisdom at some pretty inopportune
moments but who wouldn't it if they could. I share Dr.Steiner
with friends whenever the moments allow me. It is always in the
back of my mind to share his concepts and such.
I have her new book but have not been inspired
to read it. She is a little too soft in the middle for me righ
now, but I do appreciate her work. I find her to be very Michaelic.
Dottie
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 23, 2003 7:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
Hi Taz et al!!
I'm not going to give you quotes - all of
her books are autobiographies, not theoretical treatises. I'm
also not saying that she is the ultimate spiritual teacher, either.
But she has undergone a very profound journey, inwardly and outwardly
and has shared it with us to take from it what ever may be of
use. When someone puts these things in writing, certainly it
is valid to open the work itself up to criticism. You are welcome
to examine the work and say "this is off the mark"
or "she is wrong about that." But to say off handedly
that she had no business to undergo her life's journey in the
first place is extreme spiritual egotism.
Yes, I think she gave some seminars and she
has certainly spoken about her spiritual point of view in various
media, but I don't think she has tried to create herself as a
"guru". She has been some incredible places and done
some incredible things. I really object also to the comment (I
think it was Dottie's that she is "soft in the middle").
There is nothing soft about this woman. In fact her life has
always been about iron determination and self discipline, from
the discipline of becoming a dancer to the discipline of making
it through the Camino. Talk about a woman of the Will forces!!
And a real Magdalene entity!
As I said before, I think that she has given
a gift in sharing her journey with the public at large. She has
exposed herself to a great deal of ridicule and parody. But she
has also made it more acceptable for others, famous or not to
share and to admit their interests in similar subjects. Kind
of like, "...well, if she can do it, so can I."
Although Steiner is at the peak of the mountain,
there are many wonderful "knowings" to be had at all
levels. Shirley's journey is Shirley's journey. Very few could
imitate it, even if they wanted to. But we can go along with
her through her writings and be affirmed in our own life journeys.
Of course, many times I wished that I could
shout to her - "Hey, Shirley! Over here! Look - look - Steiner!
He's what you're looking for - he's got the answers!" But
it is not given to me to do so. She will be directed by her own
Angel to find what she needs to find when she needs to find it,
just like we all are. So who are you and who am I to judge her
and say that she shouldn't be making the journey that she is
making, that she should "stick to making movies?"
Also re: Frank Zappa. He was actually a brilliant
man and a real anarchist/ revolutionary. When you say "spiritual
teacher" with a sense of scorn, I still think you are being
arrogant and self-righteous. Who are you to judge? If your friend
is not promoting Zappa as the world's foremost spiritual leader,
but simply finds things of value in what he said, then there
is no reason to treat him with scorn.
It is just as dangerous to think that only
one person has the right answers and anything outside that box
is wrong as it is to say that everyone has their own little "spiritual
world" to retreat into and that's just fine. While Steiner
did more than anyone I have yet to run across in putting the
pieces of the world's "jigsaw puzzle" together and
making sense of it, it doesn't mean that there aren't more pieces
out there. We all have some and real spiritual community is going
to be about putting those pieces out there, sharing them with
others and trying to see the whole picture.
So, do you think we could stick to analyzing
and using our critical judgment on ideas and not on people per
se? If we look hard enough, we can find good in the worst of
people and bad in the best. What we will find if we look inside
ourselves?
With love,
Christine
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
At 16:41 23.11.2003, Christine wrote:
You are welcome to examine the work and
say "this is off the mark" or "she is wrong about
that." But to say off handedly that she had no business
to undergo her life's journey in the first place is extreme spiritual
egotism.
If I've said that Shirley McClaine has no
business undergoing her life's journey, please quote me.
Also re: Frank Zappa. He was actually a
brilliant man and a real anarchist/ revolutionary. When you say
"spiritual teacher" with a sense of scorn, I still
think you are being arrogant and self-righteous. Who are you
to judge? If your friend is not promoting Zappa as the world's
foremost spiritual leader, but simply finds things of value in
what he said, then there is no reason to treat him with scorn.
It's nonsense to say that I'm judging anyone.
Concerning Zappa, it's just analysis: He was a good song writer
and social critic and humorist, but I don't see him as a philosopher
of any sort. Neither did I see his merits for the screen in "1001
Motels". So I just think it's funny when my friend always
quotes Zappa when he wants to say something profound.
It is just as dangerous to think that only
one person has the right answers and anything outside that box
is wrong as it is to say that everyone has their own little "spiritual
world" to retreat into and that's just fine.
If I've said that only one person has the
right answers, Christine, again: Quote me please.
Checking out the original post here, I see
that I wasn't commenting about Shirley McClaine in particular
or specifically, but I mentioned her in connection with the "dr.
Feelgood spirituality that we're being bombarded with in the
media" and contrasted this with the profound cognition that
love is made possible only because all existence arises out of
pain and suffering. In other words, I wasn't comparing individuals,
but ideas, although I also associate ideas with people when I
hear them utter them. When I choose an idea and reject another,
it's based upon the idea itself, not the person who discovered
or developed it.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
............................................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:28 pm
Subject: Taz - quote about Shirley
At 16:41 23.11.2003, Christine wrote:
You are welcome to examine the work and
say "this is off the mark" or "she is wrong about
that." But to say off handedly that she had no business
to undergo her life's journey in the first place is extreme spiritual
egotism.
If I've said that Shirley McClaine has
no business undergoing her life's journey, please quote me.
Quote:
Subj: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] popular spirituality
Date: 11/16/2003 4:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Tarjei Straume
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
I'd like us to contrast this with the sugarsweet
Luciferic dr. Feelgood spirituality that we're being bombarded
with in the media, the Shirley McClaine stuff and the like -
the things that get so much thundering applause on the TV talk
shows, because it's what people want to hear.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a great fan of Shriley
McClaine as an actress; she's one of my all-time favorites, but
she should stick to acting and broadway stage entertainment etc
where she really knows what she's doing. because she really stinks
as a New Age guru.
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Taz - quote about Shirley
At 23:28 23.11.2003, you wrote:
At 16:41 23.11.2003, Christine wrote:
You are welcome to examine the work and
say "this is off the mark" or "she is wrong about
that." But to say off handedly that she had no business
to undergo her life's journey in the first place is extreme spiritual
egotism.
If I've said that Shirley McClaine has
no business undergoing her life's journey, please quote me.
Quote:
Subj: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] popular spirituality
Date: 11/16/2003 4:31:18 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Tarjei Straume
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
I'd like us to contrast this with the sugarsweet Luciferic dr.
Feelgood spirituality that we're being bombarded with in the
media, the Shirley McClaine stuff and the like - the things that
get so much thundering applause on the TV talk shows, because
it's what people want to hear.
Don't get me wrong: I'm a great fan of Shriley McClaine as an
actress; she's one of my all-time favorites, but she should stick
to acting and broadway stage entertainment etc where she really
knows what she's doing. because she really stinks as a New Age
guru.
I'm not saying that she shouldn't do her own
journey. (Putting words in people's mouths only vcreate confusion.)
I'm saying that she does acting best and stinks
as a guru (just like John Lennon was a great musician but no
guru.).
What I'm reacting to is the same thing that
happened around John Lennon when people waited for days and nights
for him to pass by and tell them what to do. But he was upfront
about being no guru and asked them to leave him alone. They wanted
to touch him like he was Christ or something, and he found it
creepy.
I've noticed a similar attitude pattern around
McClaine after she came out with some books. It may not be her
fault.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
............................................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:23 am
Subject: Re: PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
Hey Christine,
What I meant by soft in the middle, which
I try to overcome my self, is she 'feels' it mostly whereas Dr.
Steiner ask us to rise to the knowledge in a different manner.
I could very easily, well not so much now, get stuck in the wonder
of it all and read all the wonderful books that speak to these
particular journeys. I need the Steiner approach to really forge
ahead.
Love,
Dottie
Christine you wrote:
I really object also to the comment (I think it was Dottie's
that she is "soft in the middle"). There is nothing
soft about this woman. In fact her life has always been about
iron determination and self discipline, from the discipline of
becoming a dancer to the discipline of making it through the
Camino. Talk about a woman of the Will forces!! And a real Magdalene
entity!
............................................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Nov 25, 2003 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] PS Taz - re Shirley McLaine
At 16:41 23.11.2003, Christine wrote:
I'm not going to give you quotes - all
of her books are autobiographies, not theoretical treatises.
Well Christine, I can help you out with a
little Shirley quote:
http://www.southerncrossreview.org/30/straume1.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
November/December
2003
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
