Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Hi all, I'm new here (actually I was active here over a decade ago under a different name), at the invitation of Ashvin. I'd like to respond to Guney on the subject of Tomberg and Steiner. I'd use the "reply with quote" feature but am not yet entirely confident about my ability to do this properly.

Guney, I first read your comment about Tomberg's so-called rejection of Anthroposophy and thought to recommend you Tomberg's other incredibly important but lesser known book Lazarus Come Forth, which is in a sense the key to unlocking and truly understanding Meditations on the Tarot. It seems you're already working through it! In this book, Tomberg is telling us, in veiled language, about the profound act he has undertaken with his life's work, particularly in regard to his conversion to Catholicism and "rejection" of Anthroposophy. Namely, he has enacted the pattern of Lazarus-John, allowing Anthroposophy to die to itself and be resurrected within the walls of the universal Church, the only place where it will have a sure future. His anonymous authorship is one of many hints of this -- not only has Anthroposophy died and been raised, Tomberg too has died and been raised in the process of planting the spiritual seeds of the Church of John into the garden of the Church of Peter.

Far from being some kind of dialectical opposition to Anthroposophy, this work of Tomberg's is Anthroposophy, albeit completely transformed. Many followers of both Steiner, especially those within the Anthroposophical Society, fail to see this, because they have unwittingly taken in Anthroposophy in the manner of a dead system of concepts. Having spent a decent amount of time with Anthroposophists, I know this to be the unfortunate reality. Likewise, some followers of Tomberg - especially Catholics like Roger Buck - fail to see it because they too have not penetrated through to the living thinking which is essential to the Christ Impulse. Although I am a Catholic myself, one doesn't have to be a Catholic to know that the Church is prone to rigid thinking. The serious student of Anthroposophy, after reading Lazarus Come Forth and returning to Meditations on the Tarot cannot but see the latter as the most profound and living expression of Anthroposophy articulated since Steiner's passing. In a recorded private conversation, when asked why he chose to do this, he responded that Steiner wanted him to.

I say all these things knowing that I am probably one of the few anthroposophical Catholics around. This path hasn't been without its major difficulties, as both sides feel themselves to be sharply at odds with each other. Tomberg's work has allowed me to come to understand the profound complementarity between Catholicism and Anthroposophy. But the major development of Tomberg's is that Anthroposophy was not able to and cannot continue in its original form. The impulse was necessary but must continue transformed, namely in a more private Johannine form within individual members of the Roman Catholic Church. John, after all, arrives at the empty tomb before Peter but let's him enter first. Those who see the "depth axis" must "submit" to Church dogma not blindly but because they know it to be true, understanding it as the guiding star for what is permissible to be shared publicly of esoteric realities.

Anyway, I hope you'll let me know if any of this chimes with you.

[AshvinP]

As mentioned, I am currently rereading *Meditations on the Tarot* and Tomberg’s *Lazarus* book. For me, it has been one of the most formative, if not the most formative, occult book I have read so far. What was your experience with this work?

Guney,

I was going to elaborate on this more, but I think Rodriel's post (not sure if you were notified of it, since he didn't quote you) covers some essential points. One thing I try to keep in mind with works in this supersensible domain of inquiry (including posts on this forum) is that my experience of them continues to morph and evolve as my inner sensitivity expands to more and more 'concentric spheres' of soul life. MoT is one that I keep revisiting to work through selected portions, and I have indeed noticed it feels more and more like a holistic organism of deep intuitive insights, anchored in imaginative concepts, illustrations, and examples. I imagine that this reality is the same for practically everyone.

And this is the core foundation of SS as well - it's not simply a theoretical description of beings or Being or both, but a practical method for expanding inner sensitivity to the concentric spheres of existence. In that sense, it acts as an enzyme through which other works and other portions of the World Content in general can act as formative influences on us, whereas otherwise we would pass them by with only superficial meaning and understanding. It is only through enzymes such as SS and MoT that I can recognize and appreciate the depth of meaning contained in various philosophies, scientific findings, religious texts, occult books, etc. Not all esoteric works or spiritual traditions can act as such an enzyme, which I think is clear from the dearth of truly inspired modern works in most other traditions.

[Güney27]

Hi all, I'm new here (actually I was active here over a decade ago under a different name), at the invitation of Ashvin. I'd like to respond to Guney on the subject of Tomberg and Steiner. I'd use the "reply with quote" feature but am not yet entirely confident about my ability to do this properly.

Guney, I first read your comment about Tomberg's so-called rejection of Anthroposophy and thought to recommend you Tomberg's other incredibly important but lesser known book Lazarus Come Forth, which is in a sense the key to unlocking and truly understanding Meditations on the Tarot. It seems you're already working through it! In this book, Tomberg is telling us, in veiled language, about the profound act he has undertaken with his life's work, particularly in regard to his conversion to Catholicism and "rejection" of Anthroposophy. Namely, he has enacted the pattern of Lazarus-John, allowing Anthroposophy to die to itself and be resurrected within the walls of the universal Church, the only place where it will have a sure future. His anonymous authorship is one of many hints of this -- not only has Anthroposophy died and been raised, Tomberg too has died and been raised in the process of planting the spiritual seeds of the Church of John into the garden of the Church of Peter.

Far from being some kind of dialectical opposition to Anthroposophy, this work of Tomberg's is Anthroposophy, albeit completely transformed. Many followers of both Steiner, especially those within the Anthroposophical Society, fail to see this, because they have unwittingly taken in Anthroposophy in the manner of a dead system of concepts. Having spent a decent amount of time with Anthroposophists, I know this to be the unfortunate reality. Likewise, some followers of Tomberg - especially Catholics like Roger Buck - fail to see it because they too have not penetrated through to the living thinking which is essential to the Christ Impulse. Although I am a Catholic myself, one doesn't have to be a Catholic to know that the Church is prone to rigid thinking. The serious student of Anthroposophy, after reading Lazarus Come Forth and returning to Meditations on the Tarot cannot but see the latter as the most profound and living expression of Anthroposophy articulated since Steiner's passing. In a recorded private conversation, when asked why he chose to do this, he responded that Steiner wanted him to.

I say all these things knowing that I am probably one of the few anthroposophical Catholics around. This path hasn't been without its major difficulties, as both sides feel themselves to be sharply at odds with each other. Tomberg's work has allowed me to come to understand the profound complementarity between Catholicism and Anthroposophy. But the major development of Tomberg's is that Anthroposophy was not able to and cannot continue in its original form. The impulse was necessary but must continue transformed, namely in a more private Johannine form within individual members of the Roman Catholic Church. John, after all, arrives at the empty tomb before Peter but let's him enter first. Those who see the "depth axis" must "submit" to Church dogma not blindly but because they know it to be true, understanding it as the guiding star for what is permissible to be shared publicly of esoteric realities.

Anyway, I hope you'll let me know if any of this chimes with you.

Hello Rodriez,

Thank you for your participation in this forum and for your thoughtful comment.

This topic is a profound one, which I cannot yet fully grasp in its depth. At the very least, I understand that the Anthroposophical Society has become a community of believers. I have read books by some of its members and watched many lectures (I live in Germany, where there are many anthroposophists), and I’ve noticed how they engage in a kind of Steiner exegesis, similar to dogmatic religions, which they so sharply criticize. This does not mean that I disregard Steiner’s teachings; on the contrary, I greatly appreciate his eloquent descriptions of the afterlife and the constitution of the human being. However, beyond the Society, I find that Steiner wrote too little about religious life, prayer life, and the like. I know that he emphasizes the importance of reverence and devotion in specific passages, but his focus is more on a “scientific knowledge of the spiritual” that can satisfy the cognitive drive of modernity, yet runs the great risk of becoming a theory or a dogma of abstract thoughts. Very few will be able to study Steiner’s work, embrace it, nurture it, and bring it to fruition. This has led me (also for philosophical reasons) to doubt his broader project of manifesting a spiritual science on a social level. However, I am still relatively young and new to these topics, so I hesitate to make definitive statements.

With Valentin Tomberg’s texts, which I am currently reading and should continue reading for a long time to gain deeper insight, I feel something different. I already notice his similarities to Steiner and to occultism in general, but in a different way. He does not attempt to provide a spiritual science, at least not in the schematic form of Steiner. In *Meditations on the Tarot*, he symbolically describes inner truths through his letters on the arcana of the Tarot. He writes about the principles and “gestures” of spirituality in a meditative manner. It is much more accessible and tangible than Steiner’s texts, where Steiner quickly ascends to the heights of occult mysteries, which can only be grasped in abstract form by the vast majority of readers. Moreover, Tomberg’s writing is deeply Christocentric and focuses on soteriology. It is a synthesis of esotericism and exotericism, which I find far more valuable than a sole focus on the former. It elucidates the occult truth of the revealed tradition, which he values and to which he humbly submits.

It is fascinating that Tomberg said Steiner told him to convert to the Catholic Church. How can a synthesis between Anthroposophy and the Catholic Church succeed when they contradict each other on certain points and have entirely different focuses, such as devotion to worship, community, sacraments, and pious life? Why did Tomberg have to “rescue” Steiner’s project? Why did Tomberg then publicly reject Anthroposophy (e.g., certain teachings of it)?

It is also noteworthy what Valentin Tomberg draws out of Henri Bergson’s philosophy. He provides a practical deepening of Bergson’s concept of intuition, which Bergson himself did not develop. This is something that is gradually becoming evident in philosophical works. I find it interesting that Tomberg relies so heavily on Bergson but hardly references Steiner’s *Philosophy of Freedom*, at least in the texts and passages I have read so far. What was the impulse that must have driven Tomberg to turn away from Anthroposophy and join the Church?

[Güney27]

As mentioned, I am currently rereading *Meditations on the Tarot* and Tomberg’s *Lazarus* book. For me, it has been one of the most formative, if not the most formative, occult book I have read so far. What was your experience with this work?

Guney,

I was going to elaborate on this more, but I think Rodriel's post (not sure if you were notified of it, since he didn't quote you) covers some essential points. One thing I try to keep in mind with works in this supersensible domain of inquiry (including posts on this forum) is that my experience of them continues to morph and evolve as my inner sensitivity expands to more and more 'concentric spheres' of soul life. MoT is one that I keep revisiting to work through selected portions, and I have indeed noticed it feels more and more like a holistic organism of deep intuitive insights, anchored in imaginative concepts, illustrations, and examples. I imagine that this reality is the same for practically everyone.

And this is the core foundation of SS as well - it's not simply a theoretical description of beings or Being or both, but a practical method for expanding inner sensitivity to the concentric spheres of existence. In that sense, it acts as an enzyme through which other works and other portions of the World Content in general can act as formative influences on us, whereas otherwise we would pass them by with only superficial meaning and understanding. It is only through enzymes such as SS and MoT that I can recognize and appreciate the depth of meaning contained in various philosophies, scientific findings, religious texts, occult books, etc. Not all esoteric works or spiritual traditions can act as such an enzyme, which I think is clear from the dearth of truly inspired modern works in most other traditions.

Thank you Ashvin. I didn't see the Comment.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Hello Rodriez,

Thank you for your participation in this forum and for your thoughtful comment.

This topic is a profound one, which I cannot yet fully grasp in its depth. At the very least, I understand that the Anthroposophical Society has become a community of believers. I have read books by some of its members and watched many lectures (I live in Germany, where there are many anthroposophists), and I’ve noticed how they engage in a kind of Steiner exegesis, similar to dogmatic religions, which they so sharply criticize. This does not mean that I disregard Steiner’s teachings; on the contrary, I greatly appreciate his eloquent descriptions of the afterlife and the constitution of the human being. However, beyond the Society, I find that Steiner wrote too little about religious life, prayer life, and the like. I know that he emphasizes the importance of reverence and devotion in specific passages, but his focus is more on a “scientific knowledge of the spiritual” that can satisfy the cognitive drive of modernity, yet runs the great risk of becoming a theory or a dogma of abstract thoughts. Very few will be able to study Steiner’s work, embrace it, nurture it, and bring it to fruition. This has led me (also for philosophical reasons) to doubt his broader project of manifesting a spiritual science on a social level. However, I am still relatively young and new to these topics, so I hesitate to make definitive statements.

With Valentin Tomberg’s texts, which I am currently reading and should continue reading for a long time to gain deeper insight, I feel something different. I already notice his similarities to Steiner and to occultism in general, but in a different way. He does not attempt to provide a spiritual science, at least not in the schematic form of Steiner. In *Meditations on the Tarot*, he symbolically describes inner truths through his letters on the arcana of the Tarot. He writes about the principles and “gestures” of spirituality in a meditative manner. It is much more accessible and tangible than Steiner’s texts, where Steiner quickly ascends to the heights of occult mysteries, which can only be grasped in abstract form by the vast majority of readers. Moreover, Tomberg’s writing is deeply Christocentric and focuses on soteriology. It is a synthesis of esotericism and exotericism, which I find far more valuable than a sole focus on the former. It elucidates the occult truth of the revealed tradition, which he values and to which he humbly submits.

It is fascinating that Tomberg said Steiner told him to convert to the Catholic Church. How can a synthesis between Anthroposophy and the Catholic Church succeed when they contradict each other on certain points and have entirely different focuses, such as devotion to worship, community, sacraments, and pious life? Why did Tomberg have to “rescue” Steiner’s project? Why did Tomberg then publicly reject Anthroposophy (e.g., certain teachings of it)?

It is also noteworthy what Valentin Tomberg draws out of Henri Bergson’s philosophy. He provides a practical deepening of Bergson’s concept of intuition, which Bergson himself did not develop. This is something that is gradually becoming evident in philosophical works. I find it interesting that Tomberg relies so heavily on Bergson but hardly references Steiner’s *Philosophy of Freedom*, at least in the texts and passages I have read so far. What was the impulse that must have driven Tomberg to turn away from Anthroposophy and join the Church?

Thank you, Guney, for your response. I had not intended to carve out a sidebar conversation in this thread, so apologies if this becomes irksome for others. I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything you've said in your first two paragraphs. The Anthroposophical Society has mostly been a total failure in regard to bringing about its stated aims, and due in large part to exactly what you describe: anthroposophists absorbing Steiner's teachings as a kind of dogma, which is of course precisely the opposite of what he intended. Although I haven't spent an enormous amount of time with anthroposophists, I have participated in a fair amount of collective study and discussion, and through this experience I have literally never encountered a single person (except Ashvin) whose command of spiritual science goes beyond a schematic, conceptual level of understanding. When considering questions about spiritual science, they consult their memorized lists of facts about the "members of the human being," the planetary incarnations, etc., unable to arrive at answers through their own soul powers. The absence of a living understanding of spiritual science of course isn't proof that people with such an understanding don't exist, but rather is a testament to your point about SS being inaccessible and flawed at a certain fundamental level. And this is where Tomberg comes in.

Through Tomberg we are led to see that Steiner's spiritual impulse was the important thing, not the exact form in which that impulse was delivered. Steiner was not a prophet but a genius seer. The form he gave to the impulse which flowed through him was personal and flawed but also in a sense the right form for what he needed to achieve (to send a lasting echo out into the world). One need not and should not cling to every letter of every word "Dr. Steiner" spoke in the all too common anthroposophical manner of "Steiner says." Tomberg shows how all that is good, especially the impulses of significant individuals and the ongoing streams of culture and religion, never persists in its original form. Moreover, it is the Christ who vouchsafes the continuity of any impulse into the future, through death and resurrection. All streams (and a stream or impulse is what Lazarus represents for Tomberg) must flow through Golgotha, including Steiner's. Death and resurrection is the manner by which anything good persists. The spirit lives on, but the outer corporeal expression is transfigured. If you read MoT after studying Steiner for many years, it is Steiner's spirit that you can feel pulsating through the words. That's what I mean when I say that Tomberg's work is Anthroposophy. Steiner no longer has anything to do with the Anthroposophical Society. He has moved elsewhere, and his impulse has appeared transformed in the work of Valentin Tomberg whose work is much more directly religious, less overtly cognitive, and therefore more broadly accessible (like you say).

Another crucial thing one notices in MoT is that a large number of the figures he dedicates so much time to, people like Ignatius of Loyola, Henri Bergson, and many others are people that Steiner commented on extensively in his work, often in a negative way. Other figures are those that are clearly problematic from a Catholic standpoint but from whom Tomberg takes great care to tease out the promising elements. Tomberg's catholic project was not only to let Anthroposophy die to itself and be raised, but to use this act as bigger wave upon which everything connected with Anthroposophy would also die to itself and be raised. In MoT, Tomberg is showing the path toward redemption for all of Anthroposophy's missteps, how it can be reconciled with the other figures and streams it came into relation with. The result is a universal Christianized network or brotherhood of sorts so extensive that the only place it can be housed is within the Universal Church, which Tomberg identifies as the current Roman Catholic Church (but importantly which stands in schism with the Eastern half of its soul, awaiting future reconciliation).

Lastly, why is Steiner not mentioned often at all in MoT? He doesn't need to be. Those familiar with him will recognize him on every page. Why did Tomberg publicly reject Anthroposophy? This is the death part in death and resurrection. At a certain point, one must slough off the form that is passing away.

[AshvinP]

This is a fascinating exploration of Tomberg and Anthroposophy and certainly deserves its own thread, so I split it here. That may also help avoid cluttering the discussion on the other thread as well.

[Federica]

Hi Rodriel, thanks for your participation in the forum, glad to see new perspectives weigh in!

In case you (or others) are inclined to develop further on this theme of Anthroposophy and the Catholic Church, I would like to add my comments to this discussion. First, I wonder what you think about the Christian Community for Religious Renewal founded by Steiner. I have no direct or precise knowledge of this initiative, but I wonder how its existence may relate to the fact that Tomberg, and you, identified the Roman Catholic Church as the most suitable host for the universal network of Christians that you refer to.

Regarding the Anthroposophical Society and its branches - which I have no direct acquaintance with - I wonder if your evaluation of total failure refers primarily to your experience of a particular region and/or subject field? From what I have gathered (only from Youtube and books) my personal impression is, in terms of authenticity of anthroposophical understanding, the Anthroposophical Societies are a mixed bag. I would agree, there is a fair share of failure, however, in my opinion, some representatives of the Anthroposophical world definitely express a non-schematic, living spiritual scientific understanding, for example Christoph Hueck and Dennis Klocek.

More generally, with regards to the nature of Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science, I have to say I disagree with your evaluation of SS as “inaccessible and flawed at a certain fundamental level”. How do you come to transfer the flaws of the Anthroposophical Societies to Spiritual Science itself? SS is not a form of delivery of Steiner’s spiritual impulse. SS is that impulse. For my part, if I had to choose between modern “prophet” and “genius seer” to qualify Steiner’s role in the evolution of humanity, I would probably lean towards the former, although, of course, he also is a genius seer. But I think this label is reductive, and not because I venerate the figure, or take his words for dogma, which indeed would be diametrically opposite to the essence of Antroposophy/SS. Rather, it’s a factual remark. The uniqueness of Steiner's significance goes well beyond seership. There is the historical opening of occultism/esotericism to the public; there is the consistent and interconnected transduction of that seership in pretty much the entire spectrum of relevant human endeavors; most of all, there is the bright, spelled-out bridging of humanity and its past towards its future.

This said, I agree that “one need not and should not cling to every letter of every word "Dr. Steiner" spoke in the all too common anthroposophical manner of "Steiner says"", when this is made (as it is often the case) dogmatically, or as a way to avoid the effort of thinking through the ideas for oneself, all the way to their conclusions. Steiner made contextual mistakes, of course, and we would do well noticing and integrating them. But I believe that there is a major space in the future for spiritual scientific developments, as a direct expression of Steiner’s impulse, without it being necessarily and only represented in the “much more directly religious and therefore more accessible” work of Tomberg - whom I nevertheless hold in very high regard. Today, science needs focused attention. Mainstream science desperately needs spiritual science and - as bold as it may sound - I would keep in perspective that humanity is moving towards a future when religion (and philosophy) will become devoid of meaning - just like our far past also was without religion and philosophy - simply because there will be nothing left to ‘re-ligo’. Rather, consciousness will become more and more immediately present to itself.

In my view, it’s not Anthroposophy - the Wisdom of Man - and its "missteps" that need to die and be raised. If it was appropriate to apply the idea of redemption through death with such liberty, then why not apply it to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church too, for example? I am sure it would not be difficult to immediately list many very good reasons speaking for its death and resurrection. Instead, what needs to die and be raised is the Anthroposophical Society, for sure. Today, nobody needs a traditionally organized system of that kind, not even the paper Anthroposophers you speak of, who thrive in that environment. This is for the same reasons made clear by Steiner himself in his treatment of the organization of human society at large. We are going toward times when institutionalized outer structures of the kind we have today will become more and more superfluous for the expression of human brotherhood, and meaningless, be those structures the chapters of the present Anthroposophical Society, the outer institutions of the Catholic Church, or else.

[Kaje977]

I'd just give my 2 cents here, not too much.

But first off, I think it's worth highlighting here again that there is no independent historical evidence to support the claim that Steiner instructed Tomberg to convert to the Catholic Church except for Tomberg claiming that himself. Unless someone here has access to sources that can verify this from the other side (such as letters by Steiner, for example), I'd like this conversation to be headed towards the direction of what is publicly known and available to us and not on speculation. I'm not saying that Tomberg was acting in bad faith or lying, but we still should be very careful with putting more occult meaning into statements than they actually might have.

Tomberg very well could have had other reasons for claiming that, like, say, to convince some dogmatic Anthroposophists to follow his novel concepts and ideas, so he could have used Steiner's name to achieve exactly that to give it more credibility and convince dogmatists. Basically as a "means-to-an-end" goal. Or maybe it was for entirely different reasons. We simply don't know. It's also questionable since Rudolf Steiner passed away in 1925, whereas Tomberg's conversion to Catholicism occurred around 1945, two decades later. So, I would regard this with more neutrality if anyone would be so kind. I know OP probably wants to follow the "Principle of Charity" here (or: Charitable Interpretation), but there's no way to check this independently. Tomberg could have made that claim for several other reasons unknown.

With Valentin Tomberg’s texts, which I am currently reading and should continue reading for a long time to gain deeper insight, I feel something different. I already notice his similarities to Steiner and to occultism in general, but in a different way. He does not attempt to provide a spiritual science, at least not in the schematic form of Steiner. In *Meditations on the Tarot*, he symbolically describes inner truths through his letters on the arcana of the Tarot. He writes about the principles and “gestures” of spirituality in a meditative manner. It is much more accessible and tangible than Steiner’s texts, where Steiner quickly ascends to the heights of occult mysteries, which can only be grasped in abstract form by the vast majority of readers. Moreover, Tomberg’s writing is deeply Christocentric and focuses on soteriology. It is a synthesis of esotericism and exotericism, which I find far more valuable than a sole focus on the former. It elucidates the occult truth of the revealed tradition, which he values and to which he humbly submits.

Something that Steiner only scratched on surface and mentioned here and there (such as GA265, "The Book of Thoth") (I assume he may have had his reasons or it was simply too much information to be handed over directly, but he definitely knew), is that each of the Major Arcana in the Tarot represents an entire initiation system that could potentially fill thousands of pages if one wanted to write about it and let their intuition guide them. Franz Bardon, another well-known occultist, wrote three books that revealed three of these initiation systems (The first three Major Arcana) entirely (he couldn't finish the 4th Book, revealing the 4th Tarot Card initiation and the fifth one, as far as I'm aware, was planned, but never written). And unlike many other occult authors, it relies much less on theoretical descriptions and is a very pragmatic and practice-driven, which might scare away people who are more into theoretical and philosophical perspectives. But that was on purpose, because practice is the true key here since it's very different from the way we usually approach science. Spiritual Science needs to be approached practically. Theory actually comes later here, after acquiring practical experience. But theory/language/words/etc. can serve as an anchor or as an "instruction set" on what to do in order to gain a certain practical experience.

Regarding the Tarot, Tomberg filled this gap left by Steiner by writing (meditating) extensively about them, but even Tomberg only scratched the surface for each Tarot card (relatively speaking, of course) which, again, is due to reasons that it would be nearly impossible to put the entirety of all Great Arcana into a single book and we don't know how much practical experience Tomberg actually had or if he simply intended to not make it public if he knew. Regardless whether Tomberg actually has practical experience, his intuition is definitely spot on. For instance, he nailed the intuition of the first Tarot card right on the head: "Concentration without effort". This is the core principle of the magician. Tomberg then elaborates on this in a three-part formula that represents the practical arcana of the card:

* First, learn concentration without effort.

* Turn work into play.

* Make every yoke you bear gentle and every burden light.

To explain what "concentration without effort" means, Tomberg uses the analogy of the tightrope walker. A tightrope walker does not think about every step, he does not calculate or plan, because that would cause him to fall immediately. Instead, he shifts his center of consciousness from the brain (the cerebral system) to his rhythmic system (heart and breathing). This state of effortless concentration is, basically, an act of pure will, free from the "vibrations of mental substance", meaning free from distracting thoughts and representations.

The magician's large hat in the shape of a lemniscate (∞) symbolizes precisely this state: The eternal rhythm and infinite repetition expressed in breathing and heartbeat. It is a state of deep inner silence, a "zone of eternal silence" (Franz Bardon calls this "VoM", or "Vacancy of Mind") in the soul that remains even when one is active. This is the true starting point, not the end!

From this state, work becomes play. As the soul comes into contact with a higher, spiritual world, it no longer bears its burdens alone (hence why your responsibility towards the Universe increases). Forces "from above" (and accordingly, from within) come into play, resulting in "every yoke being gentle and every burden light". For Tomberg, this principle is the "Aleph", the beginning and foundation of all practical spiritual exercises. So, Tomberg then correctly concludes that practical teaching is matched by equally fundamental theoretical teaching. Just as effortless concentration "puts unity into practice", theoretical teaching consists of the principle of the essential unity of the world, basically the natural, human, and divine worlds. So, the point is: The Magician is the perfect synthesis of these two teachings, the microcosm and the macrocosm. Mysticism + Magick. The practice of effortless concentration corresponds on an intellectual level to the application of analogy. Neither is done as "work" but as "play". It is a state of "serious play" of spontaneity and creativity, which represents the harmony between the conscious and the unconscious.

And yet, Tomberg missed a few (imo, very crucial) things which makes his meditations practically digestable: He didn't further elaborate on what those forces are, how to work with them in concrete and what dangers lie ahead when working with these forces. Working with the qualitative elements (fire, air, water, earth) is different than working with the vital force ("Od") or the electric and magnetic fluids (Steiner calls them by different name, namely ahrimanic and luciferic etheric streams). They require very careful instructions, otherwise it's not unlikely you'd end up damaging yourself. Another things not mentioned, but are incredibly important, is the occult anatomy of the human body, since each body part corresponds to a certain fluid (electric, magnetic, some even electro-magnetic).

So, in short: Tomberg explains what a magician is and what his state means. Other occult authors, such as Bardon, explain how to become a magician, through systematic exercises to master the elements in body, soul, and spirit. Hence, why I see Tomberg as a guide for newcomers, who want to achieve a certain (but still surface level) intellectual intuition about the state of what it feels like to be initiated in a initiation system of a certain Tarot card. But as you probably have noticed by now, that's still not actual initiation.

[Cleric]

Thank you all for this thread!

I have not yet delved into VT in depth, but, like others, I find the claim that the Catholic Church is the most suitable host for a refurbished spiritual scientific impulse, a little perplexing.

It is enough to point attention to one thing (well, two things) - Karma and Reincarnation. I'm using these words in the deepest sense. These are not simply some human-level points of disagreement. For example, when looking at the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, many people feel like "Please, stop arguing whether Mary was born with the original sin or not. These are childish, insignificant trivialities. Let's unite in God!" Superficially, one may say, "Whether there's Karma and Reincarnation is all the same as long as you believe in God above all!" However, in our particular age, it is not in the least the same. In the most profound sense, grasping these truths in the depth of our being, places us differently in the evolutionary stream of humanity and the Cosmos. Something of our 'soul geometry' changes. In our day, the idea of "one life" (even though necessary until recently for certain reasons) is now being possessed by completely Luciferic and Ahrimanic influences.

To be honest, my imagination is not rich enough to imagine the Pope standing and saying, "Listen, my children, we're gradually phasing in the doctrine of Karma and Reincarnation." It is for this reason that I simply cannot comprehend how the CC (or EOC for that matter) could be a suitable host for the ongoing evolutionary impulse.

It is very straightforward. The impulse of spiritual science/anthroposophy (which in a way emerges as a stream of Esoteric Christianity flowing out of the secret schools, out in the open, and bringing a spiritual dimension to all aspects of Earthly life) is all about the human being awakening to its Cosmic dimension and thus gradually bridging the realms of consciousness divided by the threshold of death. If we do not understand this, we do not really understand what this impulse is about, thus what the evolutionary direction of humanity is. The idea that this impulse, which is already quietly working in the souls of humanity, should somehow be collected and planted in the CC box, is ...confusing, to say the least.

I'll be happy to hear others' thoughts on this.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Hi Rodriel, thanks for your participation in the forum, glad to see new perspectives weigh in!

In case you (or others) are inclined to develop further on this theme of Anthroposophy and the Catholic Church, I would like to add my comments to this discussion. First, I wonder what you think about the Christian Community for Religious Renewal founded by Steiner. I have no direct or precise knowledge of this initiative, but I wonder how its existence may relate to the fact that Tomberg, and you, identified the Roman Catholic Church as the most suitable host for the universal network of Christians that you refer to.

Regarding the Anthroposophical Society and its branches - which I have no direct acquaintance with - I wonder if your evaluation of total failure refers primarily to your experience of a particular region and/or subject field? From what I have gathered (only from Youtube and books) my personal impression is, in terms of authenticity of anthroposophical understanding, the Anthroposophical Societies are a mixed bag. I would agree, there is a fair share of failure, however, in my opinion, some representatives of the Anthroposophical world definitely express a non-schematic, living spiritual scientific understanding, for example Christoph Hueck and Dennis Klocek.

More generally, with regards to the nature of Anthroposophy and Spiritual Science, I have to say I disagree with your evaluation of SS as “inaccessible and flawed at a certain fundamental level”. How do you come to transfer the flaws of the Anthroposophical Societies to Spiritual Science itself? SS is not a form of delivery of Steiner’s spiritual impulse. SS is that impulse. For my part, if I had to choose between modern “prophet” and “genius seer” to qualify Steiner’s role in the evolution of humanity, I would probably lean towards the former, although, of course, he also is a genius seer. But I think this label is reductive, and not because I venerate the figure, or take his words for dogma, which indeed would be diametrically opposite to the essence of Antroposophy/SS. Rather, it’s a factual remark. The uniqueness of Steiner's significance goes well beyond seership. There is the historical opening of occultism/esotericism to the public; there is the consistent and interconnected transduction of that seership in pretty much the entire spectrum of relevant human endeavors; most of all, there is the bright, spelled-out bridging of humanity and its past towards its future.

This said, I agree that “one need not and should not cling to every letter of every word "Dr. Steiner" spoke in the all too common anthroposophical manner of "Steiner says"", when this is made (as it is often the case) dogmatically, or as a way to avoid the effort of thinking through the ideas for oneself, all the way to their conclusions. Steiner made contextual mistakes, of course, and we would do well noticing and integrating them. But I believe that there is a major space in the future for spiritual scientific developments, as a direct expression of Steiner’s impulse, without it being necessarily and only represented in the “much more directly religious and therefore more accessible” work of Tomberg - whom I nevertheless hold in very high regard. Today, science needs focused attention. Mainstream science desperately needs spiritual science and - as bold as it may sound - I would keep in perspective that humanity is moving towards a future when religion (and philosophy) will become devoid of meaning - just like our far past also was without religion and philosophy - simply because there will be nothing left to ‘re-ligo’. Rather, consciousness will become more and more immediately present to itself.

In my view, it’s not Anthroposophy - the Wisdom of Man - and its "missteps" that need to die and be raised. If it was appropriate to apply the idea of redemption through death with such liberty, then why not apply it to the institution of the Roman Catholic Church too, for example? I am sure it would not be difficult to immediately list many very good reasons speaking for its death and resurrection. Instead, what needs to die and be raised is the Anthroposophical Society, for sure. Today, nobody needs a traditionally organized system of that kind, not even the paper Anthroposophers you speak of, who thrive in that environment. This is for the same reasons made clear by Steiner himself in his treatment of the organization of human society at large. We are going toward times when institutionalized outer structures of the kind we have today will become more and more superfluous for the expression of human brotherhood, and meaningless, be those structures the chapters of the present Anthroposophical Society, the outer institutions of the Catholic Church, or else.

Thank you Federica, I appreciate the welcome reception from you all and the so far quite lively discussion. (I still have some exploring to do in the other threads in order to get a proper orientation to the interests and concerns of the forum, although I think I have a decent general idea). This is an extremely complex and difficult topic, and you bring up many great points to consider.

Concerning the Christian Community and its relationship to the Catholic Church - I'm not able to comment directly, as I have never attended a service of theirs; my knowledge is restricted to things I've read and heard. There is a CC location in my area, and I know a few people who are members. At some point I will go and check it out. I don't suspect that my soul's resolve will be changed by the experience, as I am a pretty firmly committed Catholic and no doubt what is lacking in all churches besides the RCC is also lacking in the Christian Community, most obviously the chair (spirit) of Peter but of course many other things that I'm sure most people are familiar with insofar as they are claimed by the Church.

My statement about Anthroposophy being a total failure is a loaded one with many qualifications. I want to take care to frame it with due nuance and respect. I'll attempt to work toward this throughout the remainder of this response. But right off the bat, let me say I don't think it's strictly a regional issue. I think it has more to do with what I hinted at as the inherent limitations of spiritual science. More on that in a moment. You mention Christoph Hueck and Dennis Klocek. I should clarify that I do believe there are people who are able to form living connections to Anthroposophy. My anecdote was that I haven't met any (Ashvin and I are only acquainted online). Most of what I have seen in my personal experience is A) very genuine attempts to grapple with the gigantic, enigmatic, magnetic, and absolutely singular personality of Rudolf Steiner; B) the complete opposite end of the spectrum, consisting of practically minded individuals of various "alternative" bents who know and even care very little about Steiner or SS, C) all flavors of A and B in connection with the schematic/conceptual approach to SS. This might seem like a trifling detail, but the sheer volume of Anthroposophical content that is to this day printed using the "Antropos" font is a visible sign of the state of things in what is called Anthroposophy today. Is this ironic or hypocritical for a Catholic to point out? No, because the Catholic Church is fundamentally traditional - in many ways it is the hardened but sturdy trunk of a massive tree. Anthroposophy is not meant to become a competing tree (it will only become a corpse) but to assist the morphological development of the already existing organism.

Returning again to the flaw or limitation within SS that I spoke of previously. This is a very tricky topic, and I will admit it's difficult for me to completely disentangle spiritual science per se from the specific manner in which Steiner bestowed it to us. Firstly, let me point out - and hopefully this is at least somewhat obvious - that I have personally been enriched beyond measure by spiritual science. I have found it quite accessible and intuitive, perhaps for karmic reasons, but we needn't go into that. But the inescapable fact is that most people do not find it accessible. Even some of the most spiritually, esoterically minded people I know, some of whom I have been discussing Anthroposophy with for years, can't make heads or tails of it. This is due in part, in my view, to the specific context in which SS as presented by Steiner arose. In addition to the fact that Steiner developed his ideas in an extremely academic and erudite milieu, the turn of the 20th century was in many ways a very different world from the one we live in now. Its materialism was of a very different kind than ours today (let me not discount the many ways in which we are of course in continuity with that time). Steiner's whole manner of presentation was designed in response to this context. The cultural-contextual gulf between us and him erects an impenetrable wall around around SS for many people today. Sure, plenty of people find their way around/through this wall, but in so many cases what they find on the other side is the corpse of what was once breathing and pulsing there. An attempt is then made to reanimate the corpse. And - here is perhaps the crux of what I've been calling the flaw - this at least in some respects is by direct instruction from Steiner. Steiner never tired of repeating how simply listening to the teachings of Anthroposophy, despite not arriving at perception, would lead one to the Christ, if not in this life then after death. Steiner seems to have underestimated the extent to which his words would reach the ears of people decades later completely unchanged, or he estimated that his impulse was so important to make loud at that specific moment in time that the benefit outweighed the risk. Those unchanged words which become dogma to so many are not a bridge to Christ but a stumbling block. Not only do they contribute to sprouting of little "ossified trees" within the soul, they lead souls to prepare for reincarnation. Not taking this life as the stage upon which one's work must be done is a grave error, and all one has to do is dust off one's New Testament again to be reminded of this sobering fact. Tomberg makes a big point of this. To be fair, Steiner himself makes a point of this too, but one has to read very carefully to pick up on it.

I'll quickly address your question about why one shouldn't also apply the concept of death and resurrection to the Catholic Church. My answer would be that death and resurrection are in fact operative for the Church - they just play out differently. The Church is a structure that from the time of Golgotha became inextricably linked with earth evolution. Its fate is connected with the destiny of the earth, and its bodily persistence through time is therefore arranged along a much larger arc than that of other institutions or beings. The Church does, however, have a tendency toward ossification (this is symbolically evident even in the name of Peter). Tomberg describes how the Church's "fructification" (to use a Steinerian term), its continual rejuvenation, comes from its integration of outside streams (the Lazarus pattern). The Church therefore is the vehicle through which the history of the entire earth will be gloriously raised in the Age to come, itself becoming ever stronger through the inclusion of increasing numbers of redeemed impulses. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it.