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

Search this site powered by FreeFind