On Symbolic Ordering, Theology, and Hierarchical Mystagogy

[Federica]

A question on something you mentioned somewhere in this thread, Ashvin - that Steiner revealed that one of his past incarnations is Thomas Aquinas. I didn't know that. A rapid search on this basis leads to the now passed Russian Anthroposofist Sergei O. Prokofieff, and I wonder if you (or anyone) have read anything he wrote? He speaks of Aristotle as another one of Steiner's incarnations, and from Wikipedia it results he wrote on Tomberg as well.

[AshvinP]

A question on something you mentioned somewhere in this thread, Ashvin - that Steiner revealed that one of his past incarnations is Thomas Aquinas. I didn't know that. A rapid search on this basis leads to the now passed Russian Anthroposofist Sergei O. Prokofieff, and I wonder if you (or anyone) have read anything he wrote? He speaks of Aristotle as another one of Steiner's incarnations, and from Wikipedia it results he wrote on Tomberg as well.

Federica,

I had not encountered Prokofieff before. I see he has a long list of publications and the one on "The Case of Tomberg and Anthroposophy" is quite critical of the former. While searching for a copy of that book, I came across a rebuttal article on Scribd. Since the book seems to only be in relation to a particular letter written by Tomberg (the 'Seiss letter'), I feel the linked article - which discusses the context of this letter and others at length - obviates the need to read it. This section in particular may be useful for supplementing our discussion of symbolic ordering on this thread.

***

This last criticism [of Prokofieff], which involves a kind of intellectualized “misuse” of the contents of spiritual science, relates more clearly to the Seiss letter. This same train of thought, however, is expressed in much more detail in a letter written by Tomberg to Bernhard Martin in 1956.[13]Key points in the letter are:· 

· Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible experience in clear and unambiguous — i.e. intellectualized — concepts.

· It differs from religion by making salvational truths into objects of knowledge (at the same time providing knowledge inaccessible to science, which science relegates to faith or superstition).

· One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith.· Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher (unless one has direct access to supersensible knowledge oneself) who can appear as an infallible “anti-pope” in competition with church and religion (the usual repository of faith); authority is thereby not cast off but merely replaced.

· Intellect (normally reflective and “moon-like) replaces the normally sun-like role of faith, leading to impudence and lack of restraint (facile characterizations like: the West – Ahrimanic, theEast – Luciferic, Middle Europe – Christian; thus Americanism – Ahrimanic, Bolshevism – Luciferic, and Germanism – Christian).

 · Intellectualization of the supersensible becomes an obstacle to direct spiritual experience and can lead to a conceptual or “occult imprisonment;” this is true for Hegelians and Marxists — and even anthroposophists. 

At this point Tomberg introduces an important caveat missing from the Seiss letter, namely that spiritual science leads to such harmful effects unless “the concepts themselves are viewed and treated as symbols” [14][my italics]. He then begins to speak about the relative merits of “ambiguous symbols” for imparting spiritual knowledge compared to the “unambiguous concepts” of spiritual science.

Before outlining these merits, it is important to emphasize that the critique of spiritual science indicated above is qualified and not absolute. Nor could it be for someone who had dedicated his early life to Anthroposophy and who retained a life-long respect for Rudolf Steiner and his works. In contrast to the “unambiguous” concepts of spiritual science, symbols (such as those found in the Tabula Smaragdina, the Apocalypse, Cabbala and the Tarot) are:

· Directional stimuli leading to direct experience of the supersensible reality toward which they point.

· Inexhaustible — concepts can be developed from them, but the potential for developing concepts is never exhausted.

· Liberating — they leave people free because they are ambiguous and open to interpretation; they can only be utilized in a manner and measure corresponding to the individual, and actually make people more free, i.e. more creative.

· The speech of the unconscious — an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

· Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

Tomberg concludes this section of his letter to Bernhard Martin by returning to the potentially negative effects of spiritual science: 

This is the exact opposite of how anthroposophists proceed. First they have a world of formulated concepts and then try to arrive at experience. But the concepts hold them shut within their world: the spiritual world remains silent, because they are the ones talking about the spiritual world; they don’t let it speak. It’s otherwise with people [like Jung]; in silence they let the spiritual world speak. And the spiritual world speaks in symbols — i.e. in mystery speech — today just like before.[15]

Note that the primary concern — despite the criticisms — is allowing the spiritual world to speak. All of Tomberg’s criticisms unfold within this context — a concern for personal, direct experience of the spiritual world and the enlivening effects of such a primal experience.

His biographers cite a passage in the Lazarus essay that adds another important clarification to his critique of spiritual science. Reflecting on historical attempts “to allow the ‘logic of the Logos’ to hold sway in human consciousness” (as expressed by the saying: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”), Tomberg indicates that Hegel was only able to reflect the dimension of truth. Rudolf Steiner had more success by creating not just a “thought system” but also a “path of spiritual and soul-development … the way and the truth.” Tomberg continues:

 "Alas it happened, however, for reasons which we need not go into here, that Rudolf Steiner gave his work the form of a science, so-called “spiritual science”. Thereby the third aspect of the indivisible threefoldness of the Way, the Truth, and the Life — namely Life — was not given enough attention. For the scientific form into which the logic of the Logos had to be cast, and by which it was limited, left little room for pure mysticism and spiritual magic, that is, for Life. So there is in Anthroposophy a magnificent achievement of thought and will — which is, however, unmystical and unmagical, i.e. in want of Life. Rudolf Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)[16] who would remedy this lack and would bring the trinity of the Way, the Truth, and the Life to full fruition."

[AshvinP]

A question on something you mentioned somewhere in this thread, Ashvin - that Steiner revealed that one of his past incarnations is Thomas Aquinas. I didn't know that. A rapid search on this basis leads to the now passed Russian Anthroposofist Sergei O. Prokofieff, and I wonder if you (or anyone) have read anything he wrote? He speaks of Aristotle as another one of Steiner's incarnations, and from Wikipedia it results he wrote on Tomberg as well.

Federica,

I had not encountered Prokofieff before. I see he has a long list of publications and the one on "The Case of Tomberg and Anthroposophy" is quite critical of the former. While searching for a copy of that book, I came across a rebuttal article on Scribd. Since the book seems to only be in relation to a particular letter written by Tomberg (the 'Seiss letter'), I feel the linked article - which discusses the context of this letter and others at length - obviates the need to read it. This section in particular may be useful for supplementing our discussion of symbolic ordering on this thread.

...

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I fully agree with all of Tomberg's criticisms of spiritual science, although I definitely understand the risks he is pointing to and the reason why disseminating it as a 'science' can become a stumbling block. The way I see it, that is only a risk within the stream of Anthroposophy which fails to balance the study of spiritual science at the conceptual level with a simultaneous path of rigorous inner development and symbolic engagement, such as we have on this forum. We are very fortunate in that regard for Cleric's extensive metaphors and illustrations of spiritual reality, as well as the consistent emphasis on meditation, prayer, and general inner perfection.

[Federica]

A question on something you mentioned somewhere in this thread, Ashvin - that Steiner revealed that one of his past incarnations is Thomas Aquinas. I didn't know that. A rapid search on this basis leads to the now passed Russian Anthroposofist Sergei O. Prokofieff, and I wonder if you (or anyone) have read anything he wrote? He speaks of Aristotle as another one of Steiner's incarnations, and from Wikipedia it results he wrote on Tomberg as well.

Federica,

I had not encountered Prokofieff before. I see he has a long list of publications and the one on "The Case of Tomberg and Anthroposophy" is quite critical of the former. While searching for a copy of that book, I came across a rebuttal article on Scribd. Since the book seems to only be in relation to a particular letter written by Tomberg (the 'Seiss letter'), I feel the linked article - which discusses the context of this letter and others at length - obviates the need to read it. This section in particular may be useful for supplementing our discussion of symbolic ordering on this thread.

...

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I fully agree with all of Tomberg's criticisms of spiritual science, although I definitely understand the risks he is pointing to and the reason why disseminating it as a 'science' can become a stumbling block. The way I see it, that is only a risk within the stream of Anthroposophy which fails to balance the study of spiritual science at the conceptual level with a simultaneous path of rigorous inner development and symbolic engagement, such as we have on this forum. We are very fortunate in that regard for Cleric's extensive metaphors and illustrations of spiritual reality, as well as the consistent emphasis on meditation, prayer, and general inner perfection.

Noted - I was wondering (before seeing this last post) if you were setting a trap, or better said, exercise, quoting the critique of spiritual science

Yes, I know, I think about that fortune every day of the week!

[Federica]

Federica,

I had not encountered Prokofieff before. I see he has a long list of publications and the one on "The Case of Tomberg and Anthroposophy" is quite critical of the former. While searching for a copy of that book, I came across a rebuttal article on Scribd. Since the book seems to only be in relation to a particular letter written by Tomberg (the 'Seiss letter'), I feel the linked article - which discusses the context of this letter and others at length - obviates the need to read it. This section in particular may be useful for supplementing our discussion of symbolic ordering on this thread.

***

This last criticism [of Prokofieff], which involves a kind of intellectualized “misuse” of the contents of spiritual science, relates more clearly to the Seiss letter. This same train of thought, however, is expressed in much more detail in a letter written by Tomberg to Bernhard Martin in 1956.[13]Key points in the letter are:· 

· Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible experience in clear and unambiguous — i.e. intellectualized — concepts.

· It differs from religion by making salvational truths into objects of knowledge (at the same time providing knowledge inaccessible to science, which science relegates to faith or superstition).

· One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith.· Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher (unless one has direct access to supersensible knowledge oneself) who can appear as an infallible “anti-pope” in competition with church and religion (the usual repository of faith); authority is thereby not cast off but merely replaced.

· Intellect (normally reflective and “moon-like) replaces the normally sun-like role of faith, leading to impudence and lack of restraint (facile characterizations like: the West – Ahrimanic, theEast – Luciferic, Middle Europe – Christian; thus Americanism – Ahrimanic, Bolshevism – Luciferic, and Germanism – Christian).

 · Intellectualization of the supersensible becomes an obstacle to direct spiritual experience and can lead to a conceptual or “occult imprisonment;” this is true for Hegelians and Marxists — and even anthroposophists. 

Ashvin, on second thought, I would like to take the risk and comment on Tomberg’s points:

Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible experience in clear and unambiguous — i.e. intellectualized — concepts.

As your recent explanations on symbolic ordering suggest, I believe the above is criticizable. Everything that is put in communicable form via lectures, books, articles, including Tomberg’s books, has that “intellectualized” aspect, in so far as it has to be apprehended by the reader in ‘normal-sensory-intellectual' state first. Then, as you said, it’s all about how the content inspires reflection, contemplation, meditation, and how open and determined the reader is to explore it with symbolic intent. So it seems to me that Anthroposophy expresses in this sense "intellectualized concepts" just as Tomberg does, by necessity. Then some expressed forms can surely be more conducive to symbolic understanding than others, but I would say the "scientific" character of Anthroposophy does not reside where Tomberg says it does. It resides in the PoF premises, to say it shortly. Do you agree?

One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith.

We have often recalled here Steiner’s idea that this is exactly what’s needed for human spiritual development today: that it comes from sound reasoning first, as in Barfield’s Final Participation, not from unscrutinized faith. What is Tomberg’s position on the evolution of consciousness and how it calls for new ways to come to the same core?

Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher

This can be acknowledged of course, but we have also said how it’s a provisional repository of faith in the teacher, with the expectation that it will eventually be transformed into direct knowledge. Therefore I would call it trust, or something else, but not faith, because it has a fundamentally different quality compared to faith as the guiding principle along a path of devotion.

Intellect (normally reflective and “moon-like") replaces the normally sun-like role of faith, leading to impudence

Yes, the line that separates “impudence” from novelty, innovation, exploration, creativity… is thin. This exhausts what I can say in favor of this comment

Intellectualization of the supersensible becomes an obstacle to direct spiritual experience and can lead to a conceptual or “occult imprisonment;” this is true for Hegelians and Marxists — and even anthroposophists.

Finally a point one wants to fully agree with!

At this point Tomberg introduces an important caveat missing from the Seiss letter, namely that spiritual science leads to such harmful effects unless “the concepts themselves are viewed and treated as symbols” [14][my italics]. He then begins to speak about the relative merits of “ambiguous symbols” for imparting spiritual knowledge compared to the “unambiguous concepts” of spiritual science.

Before outlining these merits, it is important to emphasize that the critique of spiritual science indicated above is qualified and not absolute. Nor could it be for someone who had dedicated his early life to Anthroposophy and who retained a life-long respect for Rudolf Steiner and his works. In contrast to the “unambiguous” concepts of spiritual science, symbols (such as those found in the Tabula Smaragdina, the Apocalypse, Cabbala and the Tarot) are:

· Directional stimuli leading to direct experience of the supersensible reality toward which they point.

· Inexhaustible — concepts can be developed from them, but the potential for developing concepts is never exhausted.

· Liberating — they leave people free because they are ambiguous and open to interpretation; they can only be utilized in a manner and measure corresponding to the individual, and actually make people more free, i.e. more creative.

· The speech of the unconscious — an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

· Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

Tomberg concludes this section of his letter to Bernhard Martin by returning to the potentially negative effects of spiritual science: 

This is the exact opposite of how anthroposophists proceed. First they have a world of formulated concepts and then try to arrive at experience. But the concepts hold them shut within their world: the spiritual world remains silent, because they are the ones talking about the spiritual world; they don’t let it speak. It’s otherwise with people [like Jung]; in silence they let the spiritual world speak. And the spiritual world speaks in symbols — i.e. in mystery speech — today just like before.[15]

Note that the primary concern — despite the criticisms — is allowing the spiritual world to speak. All of Tomberg’s criticisms unfold within this context — a concern for personal, direct experience of the spiritual world and the enlivening effects of such a primal experience.

His biographers cite a passage in the Lazarus essay that adds another important clarification to his critique of spiritual science. Reflecting on historical attempts “to allow the ‘logic of the Logos’ to hold sway in human consciousness” (as expressed by the saying: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”), Tomberg indicates that Hegel was only able to reflect the dimension of truth. Rudolf Steiner had more success by creating not just a “thought system” but also a “path of spiritual and soul-development … the way and the truth.” Tomberg continues:

 "Alas it happened, however, for reasons which we need not go into here, that Rudolf Steiner gave his work the form of a science, so-called “spiritual science”. Thereby the third aspect of the indivisible threefoldness of the Way, the Truth, and the Life — namely Life — was not given enough attention. For the scientific form into which the logic of the Logos had to be cast, and by which it was limited, left little room for pure mysticism and spiritual magic, that is, for Life. So there is in Anthroposophy a magnificent achievement of thought and will — which is, however, unmystical and unmagical, i.e. in want of Life. Rudolf Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)[16] who would remedy this lack and would bring the trinity of the Way, the Truth, and the Life to full fruition."

The above are the comments of the author of the rebuttal article, correct?

Directional stimuli

I would have expected an opposite characterization: radiant stimuli, which is the opposite of directional.

Liberating — they leave people free

People are left free or unfree by symbols as little as they are by intellectual concepts, I would say. People either participate in the freedom of Thinking or they don’t. In the above formulation it seems that freedom is a negative, or hollowed out quality, that is allowed or not allowed by the type of expressions administered to the reader.

· The speech of the unconscious — an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

· Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

This seems redundant to me: Understanding is healing, by necessity. And the last point is the same as the first...
Anyway, maybe it could be said that Tomberg criticized certain contemporary Anthroposophical practice, rather than Steiner? That they weren’t continuing and completing Steiner’s work the way Steiner himself had hoped they would.

[AshvinP]

Federica,

I had not encountered Prokofieff before. I see he has a long list of publications and the one on "The Case of Tomberg and Anthroposophy" is quite critical of the former. While searching for a copy of that book, I came across a rebuttal article on Scribd. Since the book seems to only be in relation to a particular letter written by Tomberg (the 'Seiss letter'), I feel the linked article - which discusses the context of this letter and others at length - obviates the need to read it. This section in particular may be useful for supplementing our discussion of symbolic ordering on this thread.

***

This last criticism [of Prokofieff], which involves a kind of intellectualized “misuse” of the contents of spiritual science, relates more clearly to the Seiss letter. This same train of thought, however, is expressed in much more detail in a letter written by Tomberg to Bernhard Martin in 1956.[13]Key points in the letter are:· 

· Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible experience in clear and unambiguous — i.e. intellectualized — concepts.

· It differs from religion by making salvational truths into objects of knowledge (at the same time providing knowledge inaccessible to science, which science relegates to faith or superstition).

· One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith.· Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher (unless one has direct access to supersensible knowledge oneself) who can appear as an infallible “anti-pope” in competition with church and religion (the usual repository of faith); authority is thereby not cast off but merely replaced.

· Intellect (normally reflective and “moon-like) replaces the normally sun-like role of faith, leading to impudence and lack of restraint (facile characterizations like: the West – Ahrimanic, theEast – Luciferic, Middle Europe – Christian; thus Americanism – Ahrimanic, Bolshevism – Luciferic, and Germanism – Christian).

 · Intellectualization of the supersensible becomes an obstacle to direct spiritual experience and can lead to a conceptual or “occult imprisonment;” this is true for Hegelians and Marxists — and even anthroposophists. 

Ashvin, on second thought, I would like to take the risk and comment on Tomberg’s points:

Federica,

I would first premise my response on the fact that I quoted an excerpt from an article about Tomberg's criticisms of Anthroposophy, so there is even more context for those criticisms in the full article, and of course, there is even more context in Tomberg's extant books, articles, lectures, etc which the article is drawing on and references in its footnotes. The author of the article is simply summarizing the more extensive commentaries of Tomberg in his own brief words. It is a similar thing with Steiner - we can never really understand his position on any given topic, especially one that calls for complex evaluations of another spiritual thinker or spiritual stream, without surveying many different lectures. So we need to always keep that broader context in mind when trying to evaluate someone's understanding of spiritual reality or other spiritual methods, and we should withhold as much judgment as possible until surveying that context.

One could then ask, so why are you even posting these excerpts if there is such a risk? That's a good question. The main aim was to supplement the discussion of symbolic ordering and why symbols are so useful as spiritual tools, without completely ignoring the Prokofieff critiques. There are always inherent risks of doing so, just like there are inherent risks to using technical scientific metaphors for elucidating spiritual reality. An overabundance of cautions and disclaimers is probably the best way to present such things, as Steiner frequently does as well. But finally, the responsibility will rest on the readers to cultivate new spiritual habits of approaching the topics. That is how these discussions can all become exercises for our spiritual growth as well. To be clear, I'm not saying that your comments/feedback lack value or insight, because they surely don't. I know you are often putting out 'thought-feelers' in order to stimulate discussion toward certain practical spiritual insights. But I also feel we could all use more reminders of this sort on the path.

It's interesting because it seems to me that Steiner himself either explicitly or implicitly raised the same criticisms of his own 'spiritual science', or rather the risks inherent in its method, scattered across various lectures. That latter part may make it more difficult to notice. He was not all unaware of these risks, as Tomberg pointed out in that passage - "Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)." There is some debate whether Tomberg himself was this successor who is to eventually become the Maitreya Buddha (Powell seems convinced that he is), but either way, I think it's clear that Steiner was already thinking about new directions for Anthroposophy towards the end of that incarnation. In short, he was contemplating the synthesis of the Platonic-Sophia path of revealed Wisdom (often in symbolic form) with the Aristotelian-Michael path of spiritual scientific thinking.

Anthroposophy is only “scientific” to the extent that it expresses supersensible experience in clear and unambiguous — i.e. intellectualized — concepts.

As your recent explanations on symbolic ordering suggest, I believe the above is criticizable. Everything that is put in communicable form via lectures, books, articles, including Tomberg’s books, has that “intellectualized” aspect, in so far as it has to be apprehended by the reader in ‘normal-sensory-intellectual' state first. Then, as you said, it’s all about how the content inspires reflection, contemplation, meditation, and how open and determined the reader is to explore it with symbolic intent. So it seems to me that Anthroposophy expresses in this sense "intellectualized concepts" just as Tomberg does, by necessity. Then some expressed forms can surely be more conducive to symbolic understanding than others, but I would say the "scientific" character of Anthroposophy does not reside where Tomberg says it does. It resides in the PoF premises, to say it shortly. Do you agree?

I agree that all intuitive insights need to be condensed into clear philosophical or scientific concepts for communication with others in the context of the consciousness soul, which is most prominently developed in the West. It seems to me that Tomberg is criticizing complete reliance on this method of communication, and the tendency to apply it regardless of context. He is pointing to the fact that intuitively experienced reality is the source of all objective, scientific knowledge, so it can't be identical with the latter and it must be capable of being approached in more symbolic forms as well, such as those of traditional wisdom or more modern Christian Hermeticism. The spiritual soul embeds the intellectual and sentient souls as well, so those modes of approaching spiritual reality are still latent within our consciousness. It is true that, for most people, the entryway to spiritual reality will be the conceptual approach that is characteristic of modern philosophy and science, but it cannot become an exclusive method or else it degenerates into an empiricism or logicism that is incapable of making too much experiential progress into supra-empirical and supra-logical realities. PoF or phenomenology of thinking experience is the first step to realizing both the capacity and the limits of our logical reasoning in the context of intuitive realities.

One effect is that knowledge is encouraged at the expense of faith.

We have often recalled here Steiner’s idea that this is exactly what’s needed for human spiritual development today: that it comes from sound reasoning first, as in Barfield’s Final Participation, not from unscrutinized faith. What is Tomberg’s position on the evolution of consciousness and how it calls for new ways to come to the same core?

Another effect: faith is invested in the teacher

This can be acknowledged of course, but we have also said how it’s a provisional repository of faith in the teacher, with the expectation that it will eventually be transformed into direct knowledge. Therefore I would call it trust, or something else, but not faith, because it has a fundamentally different quality compared to faith as the guiding principle along a path of devotion.

That is true, but I suppose the main criticism here is when the provisional trust does not in fact motivate a path to direct intuitive knowledge, which would necessarily take the student beyond the sphere of the teacher's limited expressions of that reality, and instead motivates a dogmatic adherence to the teacher and 'defense' of the teachings, as understood by the student, under all circumstances. I think we have all probably experienced at some point how strong that tendency can be. And the tendency towards idolatrous faith in human (or even angelic) teachers is constantly cautioned against in the scriptures, so we should be clear that this temptation is always present within us. It is something we should strive to become more conscious of. But we should likewise become more conscious of tendencies to cynically dismiss the teachings of higher individualities. Everything becomes a sort of artistic practice of harmonious balancing on the esoteric path of freedom.

At this point Tomberg introduces an important caveat missing from the Seiss letter, namely that spiritual science leads to such harmful effects unless “the concepts themselves are viewed and treated as symbols” [14][my italics]. He then begins to speak about the relative merits of “ambiguous symbols” for imparting spiritual knowledge compared to the “unambiguous concepts” of spiritual science.

Before outlining these merits, it is important to emphasize that the critique of spiritual science indicated above is qualified and not absolute. Nor could it be for someone who had dedicated his early life to Anthroposophy and who retained a life-long respect for Rudolf Steiner and his works. In contrast to the “unambiguous” concepts of spiritual science, symbols (such as those found in the Tabula Smaragdina, the Apocalypse, Cabbala and the Tarot) are:

· Directional stimuli leading to direct experience of the supersensible reality toward which they point.

· Inexhaustible — concepts can be developed from them, but the potential for developing concepts is never exhausted.

· Liberating — they leave people free because they are ambiguous and open to interpretation; they can only be utilized in a manner and measure corresponding to the individual, and actually make people more free, i.e. more creative.

· The speech of the unconscious — an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

· Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

Tomberg concludes this section of his letter to Bernhard Martin by returning to the potentially negative effects of spiritual science: 

This is the exact opposite of how anthroposophists proceed. First they have a world of formulated concepts and then try to arrive at experience. But the concepts hold them shut within their world: the spiritual world remains silent, because they are the ones talking about the spiritual world; they don’t let it speak. It’s otherwise with people [like Jung]; in silence they let the spiritual world speak. And the spiritual world speaks in symbols — i.e. in mystery speech — today just like before.[15]

Note that the primary concern — despite the criticisms — is allowing the spiritual world to speak. All of Tomberg’s criticisms unfold within this context — a concern for personal, direct experience of the spiritual world and the enlivening effects of such a primal experience.

His biographers cite a passage in the Lazarus essay that adds another important clarification to his critique of spiritual science. Reflecting on historical attempts “to allow the ‘logic of the Logos’ to hold sway in human consciousness” (as expressed by the saying: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life”), Tomberg indicates that Hegel was only able to reflect the dimension of truth. Rudolf Steiner had more success by creating not just a “thought system” but also a “path of spiritual and soul-development … the way and the truth.” Tomberg continues:

 "Alas it happened, however, for reasons which we need not go into here, that Rudolf Steiner gave his work the form of a science, so-called “spiritual science”. Thereby the third aspect of the indivisible threefoldness of the Way, the Truth, and the Life — namely Life — was not given enough attention. For the scientific form into which the logic of the Logos had to be cast, and by which it was limited, left little room for pure mysticism and spiritual magic, that is, for Life. So there is in Anthroposophy a magnificent achievement of thought and will — which is, however, unmystical and unmagical, i.e. in want of Life. Rudolf Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)[16] who would remedy this lack and would bring the trinity of the Way, the Truth, and the Life to full fruition."

The above are the comments of the author of the rebuttal article, correct?

Directional stimuli

I would have expected an opposite characterization: radiant stimuli, which is the opposite of directional.

Liberating — they leave people free

People are left free or unfree by symbols as little as they are by intellectual concepts, I would say. People either participate in the freedom of Thinking or they don’t. In the above formulation it seems that freedom is a negative, or hollowed out quality, that is allowed or not allowed by the type of expressions administered to the reader.

· The speech of the unconscious — an important scientific discovery of C. G. Jung; symbols such as the mandala have an important therapeutic and healing effect.

· Pathways leading to the threshold of the mysteries themselves, and to an attitude of learning and humility.

This seems redundant to me: Understanding is healing, by necessity. And the last point is the same as the first...
Anyway, maybe it could be said that Tomberg criticized certain contemporary Anthroposophical practice, rather than Steiner? That they weren’t continuing and completing Steiner’s work the way Steiner himself had hoped they would.

Correct, except for the last paragraph in quotes, which is Tomberg. I think the last part in bold is exactly right.

The symbol is directional because it fluidly allows for both radiation towards the Cosmic Periphery (One) and contraction towards the localized Center (Many). We could think of it as a porous cell membrane that allows the osmosis of fluids (our spiritual activity) back and forth. The symbol is rooted in the imaginal realm which itself is a gateway between the sensory world and the spirit worlds.

I think it's clear that imaginative and creative thinking is a higher expression of free spiritual activity than conceptual thinking. The exploration of meaning curvatures by the latter is practically constrained by the bounds of standard logic, while the former can engage in supra-logical exploration. However, I would rather express the realization of freedom at our current stage as the rhythmic interplay of both, since we certainly need conceptual thinking to express imaginative and higher realities to ourselves and others in practically useful ways. That sacrificial descent is a necessary part of free-ing our spirit from the lower nature.

Conceptual activity that is mechanical, i.e. devoid of imaginative life, is actually destructive to the organism. We can really start to sense on the intuitive path how it degenerates our nervous, digestive, and bony systems, among other things. I also agree that symbolic thinking lends itself more to an attitude of 'learning and humility' since the wondrous and mysterious quality of reality is more easily preserved. I can notice that, even when I am reporting spiritual ideas to myself in concepts with the inner voice, and when I am making these comments to you, the conceptual activity has a distinct tendency to embed feelings of pride or 'know-it-allness' that I have little conscious control over. There is likewise a distinct sense in which it negates the mysterious or enchanted quality of these intuitive realities and makes them more dry and hardened. The symbolic mode of thinking allows for a more organic condensation of revealed insights into concepts, rather than a bottom-up crystallization of concepts into spiritual ideas that will inevitably draw upon our lower nature. As mentioned above, that sacrifice into more rigid conceptual activity is necessary for the sake of a harmonious rhythm by which we share the fruits of our insights with the World, as long we are consistently becoming more self-conscious of the latent tendencies and risks of that activity. We can't underestimate the gap between these modes of intellectual and imaginative activity, because we can easily slide into more degenerative rhythms of the former without scarcely realizing it. As long as we keep inwardly working on ourselves through the Divine feedback from meditation-prayer, the gap should grow smaller and smaller over time. 

[Federica]

Federica,

I would first premise my response on the fact that I quoted an excerpt from an article about Tomberg's criticisms of Anthroposophy, so there is even more context for those criticisms in the full article, and of course, there is even more context in Tomberg's extant books, articles, lectures, etc which the article is drawing on and references in its footnotes. The author of the article is simply summarizing the more extensive commentaries of Tomberg in his own brief words. It is a similar thing with Steiner - we can never really understand his position on any given topic, especially one that calls for complex evaluations of another spiritual thinker or spiritual stream, without surveying many different lectures. So we need to always keep that broader context in mind when trying to evaluate someone's understanding of spiritual reality or other spiritual methods, and we should withhold as much judgment as possible until surveying that context.

One could then ask, so why are you even posting these excerpts if there is such a risk? That's a good question. The main aim was to supplement the discussion of symbolic ordering and why symbols are so useful as spiritual tools, without completely ignoring the Prokofieff critiques. There are always inherent risks of doing so, just like there are inherent risks to using technical scientific metaphors for elucidating spiritual reality. An overabundance of cautions and disclaimers is probably the best way to present such things, as Steiner frequently does as well. But finally, the responsibility will rest on the readers to cultivate new spiritual habits of approaching the topics. That is how these discussions can all become exercises for our spiritual growth as well. To be clear, I'm not saying that your comments/feedback lack value or insight, because they surely don't. I know you are often putting out 'thought-feelers' in order to stimulate discussion toward certain practical spiritual insights. But I also feel we could all use more reminders of this sort on the path.

Yes, these are always useful reminders of the risks. I would say, another risk worth mentioning is to draw conclusions about Prokofieff’s views without reading anything he wrote. Unless I have misunderstood the quote, I don’t see any of Prokofieff's points discussed in the post, but only the arguments made by his detractor in the referred article (that isn’t publicly accessible). I'm not defending him, only saying that nobody would like to be evaluated exclusively through a detractor's comments.

It's interesting because it seems to me that Steiner himself either explicitly or implicitly raised the same criticisms of his own 'spiritual science', or rather the risks inherent in its method, scattered across various lectures. That latter part may make it more difficult to notice. He was not all unaware of these risks, as Tomberg pointed out in that passage - "Steiner himself was conscious of this essential lack. Therefore it was with a certain amount of hope that he indicated the necessary appearance of a successor (the Bodhisattva)." There is some debate whether Tomberg himself was this successor who is to eventually become the Maitreya Buddha (Powell seems convinced that he is), but either way, I think it's clear that Steiner was already thinking about new directions for Anthroposophy towards the end of that incarnation. In short, he was contemplating the synthesis of the Platonic-Sophia path of revealed Wisdom (often in symbolic form) with the Aristotelian-Michael path of spiritual scientific thinking.

I haven't read nearly as much Steiner as you have. I haven't encountered that, but I trust you're right.

I agree that all intuitive insights need to be condensed into clear philosophical or scientific concepts for communication with others in the context of the consciousness soul, which is most prominently developed in the West. It seems to me that Tomberg is criticizing complete reliance on this method of communication, and the tendency to apply it regardless of context. He is pointing to the fact that intuitively experienced reality is the source of all objective, scientific knowledge, so it can't be identical with the latter and it must be capable of being approached in more symbolic forms as well, such as those of traditional wisdom or more modern Christian Hermeticism. The spiritual soul embeds the intellectual and sentient souls as well, so those modes of approaching spiritual reality are still latent within our consciousness. It is true that, for most people, the entryway to spiritual reality will be the conceptual approach that is characteristic of modern philosophy and science, but it cannot become an exclusive method or else it degenerates into an empiricism or logicism that is incapable of making too much experiential progress into supra-empirical and supra-logical realities. PoF or phenomenology of thinking experience is the first step to realizing both the capacity and the limits of our logical reasoning in the context of intuitive realities.

Yes, and we are discussing the content of a private letter, not a publication, which should also be kept in mind, as it makes Tomberg's critical points more acceptable and understandable.

That is true, but I suppose the main criticism here is when the provisional trust does not in fact motivate a path to direct intuitive knowledge, which would necessarily take the student beyond the sphere of the teacher's limited expressions of that reality, and instead motivates a dogmatic adherence to the teacher and 'defense' of the teachings, as understood by the student, under all circumstances. I think we have all probably experienced at some point how strong that tendency can be. And the tendency towards idolatrous faith in human (or even angelic) teachers is constantly cautioned against in the scriptures, so we should be clear that this temptation is always present within us. It is something we should strive to become more conscious of. But we should likewise become more conscious of tendencies to cynically dismiss the teachings of higher individualities. Everything becomes a sort of artistic practice of harmonious balancing on the esoteric path of freedom.

Yes.

The symbol is directional because it fluidly allows for both radiation towards the Cosmic Periphery (One) and contraction towards the localized Center (Many). We could think of it as a porous cell membrane that allows the osmosis of fluids (our spiritual activity) back and forth. The symbol is rooted in the imaginal realm which itself is a gateway between the sensory world and the spirit worlds.


I think it's clear that imaginative and creative thinking is a higher expression of free spiritual activity than conceptual thinking. The exploration of meaning curvatures by the latter is practically constrained by the bounds of standard logic, while the former can engage in supra-logical exploration. However, I would rather express the realization of freedom at our current stage as the rhythmic interplay of both, since we certainly need conceptual thinking to express imaginative and higher realities to ourselves and others in practically useful ways. That sacrificial descent is a necessary part of free-ing our spirit from the lower nature.

Conceptual activity that is mechanical, i.e. devoid of imaginative life, is actually destructive to the organism. We can really start to sense on the intuitive path how it degenerates our nervous, digestive, and bony systems, among other things. I also agree that symbolic thinking lends itself more to an attitude of 'learning and humility' since the wondrous and mysterious quality of reality is more easily preserved. I can notice that, even when I am reporting spiritual ideas to myself in concepts with the inner voice, and when I am making these comments to you, the conceptual activity has a distinct tendency to embed feelings of pride or 'know-it-allness' that I have little conscious control over. There is likewise a distinct sense in which it negates the mysterious or enchanted quality of these intuitive realities and makes them more dry and hardened. The symbolic mode of thinking allows for a more organic condensation of revealed insights into concepts, rather than a bottom-up crystallization of concepts into spiritual ideas that will inevitably draw upon our lower nature. As mentioned above, that sacrifice into more rigid conceptual activity is necessary for the sake of a harmonious rhythm by which we share the fruits of our insights with the World, as long we are consistently becoming more self-conscious of the latent tendencies and risks of that activity. We can't underestimate the gap between these modes of intellectual and imaginative activity, because we can easily slide into more degenerative rhythms of the former without scarcely realizing it. As long as we keep inwardly working on ourselves through the Divine feedback from meditation-prayer, the gap should grow smaller and smaller over time. 

Yes, I am getting some intuition of the bold. I am not so aware of conceptual activity being destructive of the bodily substances and functions per se - because I strongly feel, as you say, that it's a necessary, inevitable activity. I think the damage is the reflection of unscrutinized, repetitive, closed-loop, semi-conscious thought-images not only of thinking, but even more of feeling and will impulses, at least for me. I'm starting to see how I have been, and probably still are to an extent, unreasonably and stupidly proud of what could seem like good physical and mental health, but is actually just a fragile skin, or an iceberg tip, covering up a body of largely unknown and unmastered unstable complexity.
I am trying to get to grips with the gap between the intellectual and imaginative modes in a more concrete and personal way, which sometimes feels like opening a scary Pandora box one is not completely sure to be prepared to explore.

[AshvinP]

Federica,

I would first premise my response on the fact that I quoted an excerpt from an article about Tomberg's criticisms of Anthroposophy, so there is even more context for those criticisms in the full article, and of course, there is even more context in Tomberg's extant books, articles, lectures, etc which the article is drawing on and references in its footnotes. The author of the article is simply summarizing the more extensive commentaries of Tomberg in his own brief words. It is a similar thing with Steiner - we can never really understand his position on any given topic, especially one that calls for complex evaluations of another spiritual thinker or spiritual stream, without surveying many different lectures. So we need to always keep that broader context in mind when trying to evaluate someone's understanding of spiritual reality or other spiritual methods, and we should withhold as much judgment as possible until surveying that context.

One could then ask, so why are you even posting these excerpts if there is such a risk? That's a good question. The main aim was to supplement the discussion of symbolic ordering and why symbols are so useful as spiritual tools, without completely ignoring the Prokofieff critiques. There are always inherent risks of doing so, just like there are inherent risks to using technical scientific metaphors for elucidating spiritual reality. An overabundance of cautions and disclaimers is probably the best way to present such things, as Steiner frequently does as well. But finally, the responsibility will rest on the readers to cultivate new spiritual habits of approaching the topics. That is how these discussions can all become exercises for our spiritual growth as well. To be clear, I'm not saying that your comments/feedback lack value or insight, because they surely don't. I know you are often putting out 'thought-feelers' in order to stimulate discussion toward certain practical spiritual insights. But I also feel we could all use more reminders of this sort on the path.

Yes, these are always useful reminders of the risks. I would say, another risk worth mentioning is to draw conclusions about Prokofieff’s views without reading anything he wrote. Unless I have misunderstood the quote, I don’t see any of Prokofieff's points discussed in the post, but only the arguments made by his detractor in the referred article (that isn’t publicly accessible). I'm not defending him, only saying that nobody would like to be evaluated exclusively through a detractor's comments.

That's a fair point. I was going off of the Amazon description of Prokofieff's book - "Prokofieff presents startling new research that, in his estimation, shows the hypothesis of Tomberg’s followers to be misguided. His key evidence is a letter (reproduced in the book) that was handwritten by Tomberg in 1970. Using this text, Prokofieff attempts to show that Valentin Tomberg condemned and dismissed Rudolf Steiner and his spiritual path."

And that is the letter addressed by the article, which adds additional context from other letters and publications. So that is why I felt it was unnecessary to read the book. But I do see he has another book about Tomberg and 'Jesuitism' which is 3x longer and probably contains a more in-depth consideration, which is however unavailable. In short, I am not evaluating Prokofieff as an esoteric thinker, but only his critique of Tomberg on the basis of that one letter.

Yes, I am getting some intuition of the bold. I am not so aware of conceptual activity being destructive of the bodily substances and functions per se - because I strongly feel, as you say, that it's a necessary, inevitable activity. I think the damage is the reflection of unscrutinized, repetitive, closed-loop, semi-conscious thought-images not only of thinking, but even more of feeling and will impulses, at least for me. I'm starting to see how I have been, and probably still are to an extent, unreasonably and stupidly proud of what could seem like good physical and mental health, but is actually just a fragile skin, or an iceberg tip, covering up a body of largely unknown and unmastered unstable complexity. I am trying to get to grips with the gap between the intellectual and imaginative modes in a more concrete and personal way, which sometimes feels like opening a scary Pandora box one is not completely sure to be prepared to explore.

True, the subconscious passions are the truly destructive force that eventually leads to death. These are embedded in our lower conceptual activity as well. That wasn't always a bad thing - the Spirit works against matter (including all manifest reality) and the price of suffering-death was the only way to provide the foundation for free spiritual activity. Through faith in Christ (understood in the deeper, active sense), however, we are able to purify the passions with reasoned ideals and thereby harmonize them with our living organism. Spiritual activity no longer needs to come at the expense of living processes, but can progressively become their defender and preserver at the individual and collective scales, first esoterically and then exoterically. The process of death is then progressively experienced as that of metamorphosis, with more and more continuity of consciousness.

I came across a really helpful passage that speaks to this issue of the gap between purely conceptual and imaginative modes of exploring spiritual reality. It is a refinement of the PoF understanding. The main issue is that we experience the concept as completely transparent to our understanding. Scott made a similar point before when speaking of mathematical concepts. We can't help but feel there is nowhere left to go from such pure concepts. The imaginative symbol, however, can preserve conceptual clarity while also maintaining the experience that there are deeper layers of meaning embedded within the concept, and these layers can only be unveiled by entering into the flow of thinking itself. The symbol maintains our interest in what we have perceived, outwardly or inwardly, even after we have grasped the perception in concepts.

Each of the three basic functions of consciousness—perceiving, thinking, and speaking (which are the basis also of other human faculties)—has a distinct character and is experienced differently by adults today. Perception, for instance, poses many riddles. The disjointed particulars of perception immediately provoke questions; they are not at all transparent or comprehensible to contemporary perceiving. The difference in the “givenness” of perceiving and thinking lies not only in that perceiving is mediated through the senses while new concepts, new thoughts, appear in consciousness through intuition; much more significant is the fact that thoughts and concepts are only wholly comprehensible and transparent to us when they are really thought. Though we can certainly say things we do not understand, we cannot possibly think anything we do not understand thoroughly. Nothing remains hidden in the finished thought; so there is nothing more to search for in it once it has been thought.15 Therefore, we are justified in taking a “naïve” point of view in regard to thinking. The logic and self-evident nature of thinking—its how—are given from the superconscious sphere, and, in this “givenness,” it is totally transparent and comprehensible. Indeed, anything we understand, we understand only when it is “explained” through thinking, through ideas. In the case of thinking, empiricism is sufficient. Attempts to become aware of the “how” of thinking through logic—which can never be sufficient—do not replace the necessity of entering into the living stream of thinking if we are to understand anything, even logic.
...
Though language appears to us as a perceptual phenomenon, it can be as transparent and understandable as thinking. Language consists of perceptible acoustic or optic signs for our understanding. Understanding (meaning) is the hidden part of language. It does not appear in the perceptual world but occurs—through intuition—in the human spirit. The reality or totality of language includes both the signs and their understanding; neither is by itself the reality of language. Language unites in itself the cognitive elements of perceptual reality that would otherwise appear separately. When we do not understand them, the “signs” are not signs but remain mere objects of perception that we can puzzle over. They are signs only when they mean something besides themselves. When we understand them, the meaning we comprehend absorbs the signs; as objects of perception, they become unimportant and uninteresting. Voices, words; the form, size, structure, and material of the letters—all these disappear as objects of perception: they are dissolved and read.

Kühlewind, Georg. The Logos-Structure of the World . Lindisfarne Books. Kindle Edition.

[Anthony66]

Anthony,

I'm sorry if it seems like I kind of blew by your question here, but the truth is, I don't really know how to respond to your questions anymore. I feel like much Cleric and I have written on the topic of the OT and NT, in response to your previous statements and questions, simply goes ignored. Or at least it is not responded to, and then you resurface later with another variation of the same point or question. For now I will just quote something from Tomberg, even though I am fairly certain you will find it as unsatisfying as you have all previous responses on this topic. I hope it manages to resonate more, though.

***

This subjective state of soul is neither long nor short—it is as intense as eternity is. Similarly, the blessedness that a saint experiences in the vision of God is as intense as eternity—although it could not so last, since someone present at the ecstasy of a saint would time it as a few minutes. The “region” of eternity is that of intensity, which surpasses the measures of quantity that we employ in time and space. “Eternity” is not a duration of infinite length; it is the “intensity of quality” which, if compared with time and thus translated into the language of quantity, is comparable with an infinite duration. Concerning this, Nicolas A. Berdyaev says:

In our life on earth it is given to us to experience torments that appear to us to go on for ever, that are not for a moment, for an hour or a day, but seem to last an infinity…Objectively this infinity may last a moment, an hour, or a day, but it receives the name of everlasting hell…When Origen said that Christ will remain on the cross so long as a single creature remains in hell, he expressed an eternal truth. (Nicolas Berdyaev, The Destiny of Man, London, 1937, p. 342 and p. 347)

What can one add to this, if not “amen”? Eternal hell is the state of a soul imprisoned within itself, where the soul has no hope of coming out. “Eternal” means to say “without hope”. All suicides committed through desperation bear witness to the reality of eternal hell as a state of soul. Before committing suicide, the person who commits it experiences a state of complete despair, i.e. eternal hell. This is why he prefers nothingness to the state of despair. Nothingness is therefore his last hope.

Eternal bliss—“heaven”—is, in contrast, the state of soul which is filled with boundless hope. This is not a blissfulness which lasts for an infinite number of years; it is the intensity of hope which gives the quality “eternal”. Similarly, it is the intensity of despair which imparts to the state of soul designated “hell” the quality “eternal”. The anguish of Gethsemane which gave rise to perspiration of blood was eternal. This night, the night of Gethsemane, was not measured in hours. It was—it is—immeasurable, therefore eternal. It is due to its eternity that he sweated blood, and not because of the temporary, and therefore passing, trial. He knew eternal hell through experience, and as he came out of it, we have the “good news” that not only death is vanquished by the Resurrection, but also that hell is—through Gethsemane.
...
This is why Origen himself knew with certain knowledge that there would be no “damned” at the end of the world and that the devil, also, would be saved. And whoever meditates on the sweat of blood in Gethsemane and on the words “It is I” (or “I am he”), announcing the eternal victory over eternal hell, also will know with certain knowledge that eternal hell exists as a reality, but that it will be empty at the end of time. The sweat of blood in Gethsemane is the source of “Origenism”; here is the source of its inspiration.

Ashvin,

Please be rest assured that none of your responses are ignored. I typically read your and Cleric's posts a number of times. Oftentimes there are aspects that I park and come back to some weeks or months later, sometimes to find that they now make sense, other times they remain impervious to my understanding and get parked again. Some posts I come back to time and time again because of their illuminating qualities.

I realize that my way of interacting doesn't provide much stimulation from your end. I'm hoping for the day when I can become a generator of novel material flowing from my inward discoveries but I'm not at the point just yet.

Yes the OT/NT issue still remains troublesome for me. I'm trying to understand the scriptures through a different lens but this is an ongoing battle and almost every interaction with them leaves me with challenging questions.

Anthony,

I am glad you are continuing to read and work with the posts. And there is no reason to feel that you need to generate novel material. Simply working through the material on this forum is enough. There is no problem with having challenging questions when approaching the scripture or any spiritual realities. In fact, everything should present to us as a great question, a mysterious riddle. That is a great way to reawaken our symbolic thinking capacity, IF we are approaching it with genuine questions rather than cynical doubts that we are calling "questions". There is a fine line between them and too often we confuse the latter for the former. Genuine questions leave us with an open-mind and a fiery enthusiasm to ask more questions and start exploring the answers. Cynical doubts leave us in a state of skeptical stagnation, a feeling that we have already exhausted the topic in our thought and there is simply nowhere left to go.

On the current matter, why do we assume that "RCC theology" is some static framework of concepts with definite meanings? Because the catechism, creeds, and encyclicals are expressed in terms of common intellectual thought forms, not from an esoteric perspective which only a limited number of individuals can understand.

We often mention how the whole essence of the modern problem, across all domains of inquiry, is leaving our first-person spiritual activity in the blind spot. Are those things absolutely expressed in "common intellectual thought forms", for all time, or are those simply the thought forms you bring to bear on them at your current stage of development? I quoted the Apostle's Creed before in a previous comment. Would you grant that my experience of what is being conveyed there may be quite distinct from yours? It's not that I can't understand the intellectual meaning, but I can also view that meaning in a higher light. There are many superimposed layers of meaning and many of the higher layers are veiled to my current consciousness as well. If we expect all higher perspectives to be equally available to all people who have inherited the capacity to think, at all times and regardless of individual merit, then we are keeping our own spiritual activity and its role in World Evolution in the blind spot.

This was all symbolically explored in Cleric's morphic spaces post, so you may want to revisit that again. There is no fundamental difference between secular scientists observing the motion of dead concepts and thereby deriving absolute 'laws of physics' to which all higher life-soul-spirit experiences can be reduced, and you observing the configurations of dead intellectual forms in the religious domain and thereby deriving the meaning of absolute doctrines to which all 'RCC theology' can be reduced. Why limit this conclusive judgment to only RCC theology, in that case? Shouldn't we equally extend that to EOC, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist theology (to the extent the latter have been formulated for the layperson to understand)? There are great risks if we continue to indulge these end-user habits of thinking. There is no better way to explore the meaning of theology than to return to its inspired source in scripture, without passion or prejudice, and with the symbolic capacity that it naturally invites.

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3)

Of course understanding varies between individuals and within individuals across time. But within our current morphic intellectual space we maintain concepts shared between people which carry a certain semantic range. Concepts like hell clearly have a referent which could be endlessly plumbed of meaning. But the centre of the semantic space is "a bad place or state". And salvation (another term worth plumbing!) from hell is found only in the RCC, at least according to traditional dogma. Of course there have been reflections, particularly from second Vatican, what actually constitutes being "in" the RCC. But esotericists, with their extreme stretching of the semantic range of a host of theological concepts, have not been looked favourably upon by the RCC.

[AshvinP]

Ashvin,

Please be rest assured that none of your responses are ignored. I typically read your and Cleric's posts a number of times. Oftentimes there are aspects that I park and come back to some weeks or months later, sometimes to find that they now make sense, other times they remain impervious to my understanding and get parked again. Some posts I come back to time and time again because of their illuminating qualities.

I realize that my way of interacting doesn't provide much stimulation from your end. I'm hoping for the day when I can become a generator of novel material flowing from my inward discoveries but I'm not at the point just yet.

Yes the OT/NT issue still remains troublesome for me. I'm trying to understand the scriptures through a different lens but this is an ongoing battle and almost every interaction with them leaves me with challenging questions.

Anthony,

I am glad you are continuing to read and work with the posts. And there is no reason to feel that you need to generate novel material. Simply working through the material on this forum is enough. There is no problem with having challenging questions when approaching the scripture or any spiritual realities. In fact, everything should present to us as a great question, a mysterious riddle. That is a great way to reawaken our symbolic thinking capacity, IF we are approaching it with genuine questions rather than cynical doubts that we are calling "questions". There is a fine line between them and too often we confuse the latter for the former. Genuine questions leave us with an open-mind and a fiery enthusiasm to ask more questions and start exploring the answers. Cynical doubts leave us in a state of skeptical stagnation, a feeling that we have already exhausted the topic in our thought and there is simply nowhere left to go.

On the current matter, why do we assume that "RCC theology" is some static framework of concepts with definite meanings? Because the catechism, creeds, and encyclicals are expressed in terms of common intellectual thought forms, not from an esoteric perspective which only a limited number of individuals can understand.

We often mention how the whole essence of the modern problem, across all domains of inquiry, is leaving our first-person spiritual activity in the blind spot. Are those things absolutely expressed in "common intellectual thought forms", for all time, or are those simply the thought forms you bring to bear on them at your current stage of development? I quoted the Apostle's Creed before in a previous comment. Would you grant that my experience of what is being conveyed there may be quite distinct from yours? It's not that I can't understand the intellectual meaning, but I can also view that meaning in a higher light. There are many superimposed layers of meaning and many of the higher layers are veiled to my current consciousness as well. If we expect all higher perspectives to be equally available to all people who have inherited the capacity to think, at all times and regardless of individual merit, then we are keeping our own spiritual activity and its role in World Evolution in the blind spot.

This was all symbolically explored in Cleric's morphic spaces post, so you may want to revisit that again. There is no fundamental difference between secular scientists observing the motion of dead concepts and thereby deriving absolute 'laws of physics' to which all higher life-soul-spirit experiences can be reduced, and you observing the configurations of dead intellectual forms in the religious domain and thereby deriving the meaning of absolute doctrines to which all 'RCC theology' can be reduced. Why limit this conclusive judgment to only RCC theology, in that case? Shouldn't we equally extend that to EOC, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist theology (to the extent the latter have been formulated for the layperson to understand)? There are great risks if we continue to indulge these end-user habits of thinking. There is no better way to explore the meaning of theology than to return to its inspired source in scripture, without passion or prejudice, and with the symbolic capacity that it naturally invites.

"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3)

Of course understanding varies between individuals and within individuals across time. But within our current morphic intellectual space we maintain concepts shared between people which carry a certain semantic range. Concepts like hell clearly have a referent which could be endlessly plumbed of meaning. But the centre of the semantic space is "a bad place or state". And salvation (another term worth plumbing!) from hell is found only in the RCC, at least according to traditional dogma. Of course there have been reflections, particularly from second Vatican, what actually constitutes being "in" the RCC. But esotericists, with their extreme stretching of the semantic range of a host of theological concepts, have not been looked favourably upon by the RCC.

That is true, there is a semantic range. But when we move from isolated concepts like 'hell' or 'heaven', which as you note are already quite deep, and move to the relations of these concepts that constellate a semantic space like 'salvation through faith in Christ', or an even broader/deeper space like 'salvation through faith in Christ as embodied by the institution of the RCC', do you see how the issue becomes much more complex? It seems you implicitly acknowledge there are great mysteries surrounding such things, but you are still hesitant to renounce very firm and definite thoughts about what they mean. Both the fundamentalists and the atheists put themselves in the same position - they want these things to be very transparent to their modern conceptual understanding and then project that desire for surface-level transparency back through the entire history of the Church.

But any honest and effortful survey of the scriptures and the early Church writings, for ex., reveals that the mysterious character of such things was front and center in the early Christian consciousness. We could take the example of Origen, who surely must be considered influential in the organic development of the early Church and its traditional doctrine. What are your thoughts on the following passage?

What John calls the eternal Gospel, and what may properly be called the spiritual Gospel, presents clearly to those who have the will to understand, all matters concerning the very Son of God, both the mysteries presented by His discourses and those matters of which His acts were the enigmas. In accordance with this we may conclude that, as it is with Him who is a Jew outwardly and circumcised in the flesh, so it is with the Christian and with baptism. Paul and Peter were, at an earlier period, Jews outwardly and circumcised, but later they received from Christ that they should be so in secret, too; so that outwardly they were Jews for the sake of the salvation of many, and by an economy they not only confessed in words that they were Jews, but showed it by their actions. And the same is to be said about their Christianity. As Paul could not benefit those who were Jews according to the flesh, without, when reason shows it to be necessary, circumcising Timothy, and when it appears the natural course getting himself shaved and making a vow, and, in a word, being to the Jews a Jew that he might gain the Jews— so also it is not possible for one who is responsible for the good of many to operate as he should by means of that Christianity only which is in secret. That will never enable him to improve those who are following the external Christianity, or to lead them on to better and higher things. We must, therefore, be Christians both somatically and spiritually, and where there is a call for the somatic (bodily) Gospel, in which a man says to those who are carnal that he knows nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified, so we must do. But should we find those who are perfected in the spirit, and bear fruit in it, and are enamoured of the heavenly wisdom, these must be made to partake of that Word which, after it was made flesh, rose again to what it was in the beginning, with God.

The foregoing inquiry into the nature of the Gospel cannot be regarded as useless; it has enabled us to see what distinction there is between a sensible Gospel and an intellectual and spiritual one. What we have now to do is to transform the sensible Gospel into a spiritual one. For what would the narrative of the sensible Gospel amount to if it were not developed to a spiritual one? It would be of little account or none; any one can read it and assure himself of the facts it tells— no more. But our whole energy is now to be directed to the effort to penetrate to the deep things of the meaning of the Gospel and to search out the truth that is in it when divested of types.

Origen. The Complete Works of Origen (Illustrated) (pp. 1450-1451). Delhi Open Books. Kindle Edition.