Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Any topics primarily focused on metaphysics can be discussed here, in a generally casual way, where conversations may take unexpected turns.
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 6413
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by AshvinP »

Cleric wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 9:22 am
AshvinP wrote: Sun Oct 12, 2025 7:35 pm This is why I will wait for Cleric to respond to this topic, if he so chooses. If he does, you will probably tell him that he has misunderstood what you are writing for the millionth time. But at least there is a sliver of a chance that the Light will break through in that scenario.
I intend to write a few things, but this will be possible later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, I offer the following experiment. We can use Eugene as a 'yardstick'. We know that he has no problem with Christian Mysticism and gladly delves into Meister Eckhart, Dionysius the Areopagite, and so on. The imaginative experiment we can do is to experience, for example, the MoT through Eugene's eyes, and follow how well it is received. Since you are more familiar with the contents, can you sense a place where the Eugene-you puts the book aside and says, "This goes too far"? IOW, would you be able to read the MoT without this disturbing the vision of Godel's Candyshop Paradise after death (not whether VT speaks of such a candyshop but whether there's something that would negate it as a possibility)?

As an extension to this exercise, we can imagine conversing with VT himself. Is it possible to imagine a scenario where you try to explain something to him that leads to a point of discord? For example, we can take the topic of whether there can be or can be no science of the spirit. IOW is the science of the spirit simply an intellectual breaking down of the arcane experiences?

Thanks for this thought experiment. I was actually thinking of suggesting a similar 'stress test' experiment, as I also suggested to Rodriel before on his 'Catholic project' position.

Over the years of contemplating and discussing these topics across forums, I feel that I have developed a certain sensitivity for the thought-patterns indicating significant deviations from the Christ-Michaelic impulse, as we understand it here (in terms of truthful and faithful phenomenological exploration of unfamiliar inner dynamics, not as any kind of merely intellectual esotericism that dabbles in various spiritual domains of inquiry). For example, we had previously discussed how OMA seemed to have deviated from this Impulse a bit in his later years. That would be an example of a quite subtle deviation, whereas we have come across many more stark deviations on this forum and others. Martinus may be a somewhat starker example, even though he speaks much about the Cosmic Christ. This is only to say that I am always trying to remain sensitive and attentive to how soul moods may be shaping an inner stance and influencing a line of thinking in a certain unhealthy direction.

Now returning to your experiment. I will start with the extension - the simple answer here, based on my contemplation of VT's work, is no. This relates to something you said before - "Now, it can be objected that VT’s project doesn’t prevent one from growing into the spiritual. But it is precisely here that we must be very lucidly aware that we can only be comfortable with this fact because we draw nectar from other flowers." The fact we should keep in mind is that VT himself drew abundant nectar from the Anthroposophical/SS flower, probably more than we ever will in this current incarnation. He lectured extensively on higher cognition, as understood by Steiner, and on various spiritual scientific topics, for example, the 'second coming' of Christ in the etheric. He indeed underwent a significant inner shift in his outlook and emphasis when he joined the Catholic Church, but he never repudiated his earlier spiritual scientific knowledge or teachings, and in some cases further substantiated them. Of course, it's also not possible to lose higher cognitive faculties after developing them, just like we don't lose the skill of riding a bike or playing an instrument, although it may fall into disrepair, become more clumsy, etc.

It seems to me that VT gradually took a different perspective on how effective spiritual scientific teachings can be for the general population, for example, in the way they are presented in most Anthroposophical discussions. He felt that more imaginative symbols needed to be recruited into the mediation between the intellectual soul and its higher nature, which is not too dissimilar from what we are doing here with various metaphors and illustrations. But we should be clear that this different perspective of VT was not a result of failing to understand what the science of the spirit is, as is usually the case with such detractors. I'm sure you would agree that has universally been our experience on this forum as well. People don't reject the prospect of supersensible research because they have understood it and decided it's not a worthwhile endeavor, but because they have failed to understand it at all and have rather only proceeded based on their caricature of it. This is not the case with VT, from what I can tell, drawing from both his Anthroposophical history and his later works.

Back to the original experiment. To be fair, I had trouble locating a passage in Steiner that would also be unequivocally challenging to his inner stance, since it's not too difficult to say "yes, that is all a valid description of the higher-order dynamics, but it's also leaving out the experiential dimension of Oneness, which preserves the possibility of Godel's candy shop". In other words, as long as the descriptions are taken quite abstractly, they can be crammed into one's preferred narrative. The spiritual descriptions and their living implications need to be understood much more concretely before they become unsettling for such an inner stance. Things are much less explicit with VT. If I had to focus on a particular part of MOT, it would probably be his discussion of how souls choose to incarnate and the gradual development of the resurrection body. I think that if such artistic descriptions and their living implications are understood concretely, then it should be unsettling for such a candy shop vision.

This means to say that the individuality—in the case where his incarnation is ruled by the law of the vertical—descends consciously and of his own free will to birth, into an environment where he is wanted and awaited, whilst he is carried away by the general current of terrestrial attraction towards birth in the case where his incarnation comes under the law of the horizontal. Incarnation-birth presupposes conscious agreement between the will of the individuality above and the receiving will below. This is why all incarnation-births are announced, i.e. preceded by knowledge of the individuality who is going to incarnate himself due either to direct intuition or to intuition revealing itself in dream or, lastly, to revelation by means of a vision experienced by the future parents in full waking consciousness... This is why every incarnation-birth implies two events: revelation of the will above, or annunciation, and the act of consent of the will below.
...
Therefore, it is thus that the body, in accordance above all with the individuality and not according to the line of hereditary descent, is the work of the will of the individuality who is descending to incarnation acting hand in hand with the will receiving him below. And it is this united will which constitutes the indestructible and immortal kernel of the body. It is the “philosopher’s stone”, which arranges the matter and energy given by Nature in such a way that it is adapted to the individuality—so that it becomes an imprint of it. Such an “individualised” body certainly returns to Nature (at the moment of death) the substances and energies that it had been given, but its active principle, its formative will-energy, survives death.
...
Thus, the resurrection body is prepared during the course of the ages. Each particular human incarnation is effected according to the law of the cross, i.e. it is vertical and horizontal at the same time. In reality it is only the proportion between the vertical of incarnation and the horizontal of heredity—i.e. the preponderance of the vertical over the horizontal or vice versa—which makes a particular incarnation emphasise either the law of the vertical or that of the horizontal. Hence the process of the growth of the resurrection body is gradual. The resurrection body matures from incarnation to incarnation, although in principle it should be possible for a single incarnation to suffice. In fact, however, it is so that many incarnations are necessary to bring the resurrection body to maturity.

Anonymous . Meditations on the Tarot: A Journey into Christian Hermeticism (p. 578). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 6413
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by AshvinP »

Cleric wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 9:22 am
AshvinP wrote: Sun Oct 12, 2025 7:35 pm This is why I will wait for Cleric to respond to this topic, if he so chooses. If he does, you will probably tell him that he has misunderstood what you are writing for the millionth time. But at least there is a sliver of a chance that the Light will break through in that scenario.
I intend to write a few things, but this will be possible later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, I offer the following experiment. We can use Eugene as a 'yardstick'. We know that he has no problem with Christian Mysticism and gladly delves into Meister Eckhart, Dionysius the Areopagite, and so on. The imaginative experiment we can do is to experience, for example, the MoT through Eugene's eyes, and follow how well it is received. Since you are more familiar with the contents, can you sense a place where the Eugene-you puts the book aside and says, "This goes too far"? IOW, would you be able to read the MoT without this disturbing the vision of Godel's Candyshop Paradise after death (not whether VT speaks of such a candyshop but whether there's something that would negate it as a possibility)?

As an extension to this exercise, we can imagine conversing with VT himself. Is it possible to imagine a scenario where you try to explain something to him that leads to a point of discord? For example, we can take the topic of whether there can be or can be no science of the spirit. IOW is the science of the spirit simply an intellectual breaking down of the arcane experiences?

I also want to add, by the way, that I tried to address some of what I thought was going in with VT in this post to Guney. That was after he shared a letter where VT clearly expressed exasperation with Anthroposophy and 'spiritual science', feeling it had become a hopelessly abstract and fossilized method for sharing supersensible experiences. I'm not saying I completely agree with his stance there, but I can certainly understand the perspective from which he was speaking, and it seems to me that it is born from a similar place from which you spoke here:


https://metakastrup.org/viewtopic.php?p=26988#p26988
Why is this important? Because if we go on to apply the results of spiritual science in a flat way, the whole field will degenerate even faster than the physical sciences do. The latter at least still have their physical experiments to draw on. Such an application will actually be a very suitable job for LLMs because if we leave the experience of the vertical axis only to clairvoyants, we're left with nothing more than a flat tableau of abstract puzzle pieces. Yes, in the back of our minds we know that they have been projected down from deeper reality, but on our side it all reduces to intellectual combinatorics. We simply learn what token goes with what, and this is precisely what the LLM does. And we don't have to go very far to see that this is taking place. I've been told that there are plenty of Waldorf teachers today who simply go through their licensing, learn to apply the general teaching program, and start working. Some of them haven't even read a book by Steiner. I don't have firsthand information about physiology, but it's not difficult to imagine that the same thing could apply.

Just to be clear, if the question is whether a soul can simply immerse itself in MoT and avoid spiritual scientific study-meditation in our time, to gain a proper orientation to their deeper spiritual nature and its activity, then I would say no, not at all. As I expressed to Guney, that ignores the path that VT himself took in order to develop such a series of meditations. That path went through the phenomenology of spiritual activity and the detailed study of supersensible research. His ability to so sharply criticize the spiritual scientific enterprise in his 70s, as it had taken shape over the decades, was possible because of, not despite, his spiritual scientific background, as I would say is the case for us as well when we observe and criticize the 'intellectual combinatorics' of modern Anthroposophy.
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
User avatar
Rodriel Gabrez
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2025 4:11 pm

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Rodriel Gabrez »

I've been out of the loop for a few days and was pleased to find that so much discussion had taken place when I checked back in. At this point I feel I've largely said most of what I have to say on this subject and will refrain from repeatedly making the same points. I'll provide a few remarks here in response to a select few comments that stood out to me in catching up. I hope it's okay that I don't use the quote feature but simply reference the comments, as quoting would involve jumping back and forth between pages in the forum.

Frederica mentioned the importance of action in anthroposophical pursuit, of being doers, claiming that Tomberg strayed from this aim. I can't think of many people, anthroposophists or otherwise, who spurred themselves into a life of total action more than Valentin Tomberg. This man dedicated his whole life to continuing Steiner's work, and through this his life became a direct enactment of the spiritual knowledge he wished to impart to others (or, I should perhaps better say, he wished others to help find within themselves). He did not just write about spiritual science; he sacrificially plunged himself into the very activity of the spiritual streams operating within his written words. This fact is undeniable. Now, one can look upon this life of action as time and talent wasted, but it would be a profound injustice to rob Tomberg of his self-giving deed, which if nothing else was profoundly Christian.

Ashvin took note of my interest in and appreciation for his essays. What I find the most promising about these works is their alignment with the Tombergian impulse, which is to use writing as a veil which simultaneously conceals and reveals. Nowhere in these writings are "naked" esoteric realities expressed. But as one reads them one finds one's soul being set astir into living spiritual configurations. It is my firm conviction that this is how Anthroposophy is meant to continue. The initial delivery vehicle (Steiner's work) carried with it the very moribund forces - and to a very concentrated degree - which the inner content was meant to overcome. (This is, by the way, what is being indicated in the Christ and Sophia quote I provided a ways back in this thread about Lazarus's etheric body radiating out more than it could receive). Anthroposophy moves forward through being continually re-expressed in different ways, and these different ways must be adjusted to and defined by the needs and level of receptivity of different souls. Morally creative speech is speech crafted to benefit one's fellow human beings. One plants lessons (exercises) in one's speech as seeds that grow and bear fruit within the other's soul experience. Those who aren't ready for naked truths need more veiling and guardrails, lest the message received become a stumbling stone. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." (Mtw 18:16). Does this mean that Steiner was wrong to deliver such an unveiled and concentrated message? No. It was precisely what was needed at that exact moment in time, and his deed is the spiritually living impulse from which all subsequent Johannine activity will flow.

Cleric has continually pointed to the image of new wine skins to illustrate how the Catholic Church is unfit to be the vehicle for the continuation of Anthroposophy. One does well to remember that the wounds of Christ Jesus were still visible in his resurrection body, which he presented to Thomas the doubter. All that is new in evolution is the transformation and perfection of that which used to be, to which the marks which remain testify. What gets "sloughed off" (to used Steiner's words) is the no-longer relevant condition or modality of the entity in question. I do not at all expect the Church to continue in the same condition forever. It will undergo a transformation. But just as one doesn't jettison the astral body from one's organization in realizing the spirit self, the corporate body of the Church doesn't simply cease to have any relevance after Steiner. "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." (Isaiah 11:1). So too the consciousness grows atop the stem of the intellectual soul. Also, the care and stewardship of souls is a process spanning generations, and for the moment the role of the Church, I argue, is to continue guarding the intellectual soul while maintaining the opening for the consciousness soul. Here I am beginning to repeat myself, so I will stop.

I'll end for now with this extended quote from Tomberg's first Catholic work The Art of the Good, which I am only now reading for the first time and which contains much explicit confirmation of many of the conclusions I've drawn from his other work, including that expressed in the next-to-last sentence of the previous paragraph.
...In response to Christ's question, "Whom say the people that I am?" the disciples provide the mere opinions of the people: "John the Baptist; but some say, Elias; and others say, that one of the old prophets is risen again." None of these opinions is correct, since they are all based only on sensorily perceived facts. People read and heard about the prophets and about Elias, they heard and saw John the Baptist, and now they were trying to connect this new experience, that is, the appearance of Jesus Christ, with ideas familiar to them. The opinions of the people, their doxa are, in themselves, on the way to the truth, but they are incomplete, and thus do not constitute adequate knowledge.

From this first level follows the second, in the shape of the answer to the question Christ poses to the disciples themselves. "Who do you say that I am?" This question is put to all the disciples, and all the disciples were to give an answer to it. The answer Peter gave was not the answer of them all to the question, since Christ (according to Matthew 16:17) tells Peter, "Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah...," but also does not say, "Blessed are you all, since you have collectively answered my question truthfully through the mouth of Peter." Consequently it is the silence of the disciples following upon this question which is their answer. Purely logical thinking, dianoia, is in and of itself incapable of achieving an insight into the essence of what is being asked about. It admits its incapacity by its silence. Conversely, this silence is the best human cognitive capacity can do in the circumstances. It does not block the path to the immediate knowledge that came about in Peter through the third, higher power, but leaves the way open for it.

Peter therefore, could raise his voice before a circle of attentive listeners and proclaim the words, "The Christ of God." This reply is in no way a result of sensuous perception, any more than of purely conceptual inference, but is instead the revelation of the immediate discernment of value (episteme) in Christ's nature, as a manifestation of the moral world-order. There, however, is it evident that Christ is no mere prophet, no mere preparer of the way, but the very sun of the moral cosmos, a sun that can all the more clearly be known since it outshines with its light all other stars, just as the natural sun does in the physical cosmos. It was this immediate vision of the mora cosmos, of the world of moral value (that is, of the "spiritual world") that made it possible for Peter to achieve certainty about "Christ as God." This is then also in another place (Matt. 16:17) expressly confirmed by Christ himself, when he says, "Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonah: for flesh and blood (i.e. the natural cosmos) hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (i.e. , in the moral cosmos)."
User avatar
Cleric
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Cleric »

AshvinP wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 4:32 pm I also want to add, by the way, that I tried to address some of what I thought was going in with VT in this post to Guney. That was after he shared a letter where VT clearly expressed exasperation with Anthroposophy and 'spiritual science', feeling it had become a hopelessly abstract and fossilized method for sharing supersensible experiences. I'm not saying I completely agree with his stance there, but I can certainly understand the perspective from which he was speaking, and it seems to me that it is born from a similar place from which you spoke here:


https://metakastrup.org/viewtopic.php?p=26988#p26988
Why is this important? Because if we go on to apply the results of spiritual science in a flat way, the whole field will degenerate even faster than the physical sciences do. The latter at least still have their physical experiments to draw on. Such an application will actually be a very suitable job for LLMs because if we leave the experience of the vertical axis only to clairvoyants, we're left with nothing more than a flat tableau of abstract puzzle pieces. Yes, in the back of our minds we know that they have been projected down from deeper reality, but on our side it all reduces to intellectual combinatorics. We simply learn what token goes with what, and this is precisely what the LLM does. And we don't have to go very far to see that this is taking place. I've been told that there are plenty of Waldorf teachers today who simply go through their licensing, learn to apply the general teaching program, and start working. Some of them haven't even read a book by Steiner. I don't have firsthand information about physiology, but it's not difficult to imagine that the same thing could apply.

Just to be clear, if the question is whether a soul can simply immerse itself in MoT and avoid spiritual scientific study-meditation in our time, to gain a proper orientation to their deeper spiritual nature and its activity, then I would say no, not at all. As I expressed to Guney, that ignores the path that VT himself took in order to develop such a series of meditations. That path went through the phenomenology of spiritual activity and the detailed study of supersensible research. His ability to so sharply criticize the spiritual scientific enterprise in his 70s, as it had taken shape over the decades, was possible because of, not despite, his spiritual scientific background, as I would say is the case for us as well when we observe and criticize the 'intellectual combinatorics' of modern Anthroposophy.
Thanks, Ashvin,
I won't be able to write the full response now. I just want to note that the Catholicism question is particularly interesting and in a sense decisive for solving this mystery. Not why Catholicism exactly, but why convert to anything at all? It really invites us to investigate from within what inner stance VT must have lived his incarnation so that such a conversion felt necessary. What does it even mean to convert? What changes? One possibility is that this act has been entirely formal, just to align with certain external necessities and have the paperwork right, so to speak. But I don't feel that this was exactly the case. It feels to me that for him the Church mothership was indeed something substantial and indispensable for evolution. Next time I'll try to present a possibility for why things could feel that way, even in the face of deeper supersensible experiences.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 2540
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Federica »

I want to attract attention to a few of Tomberg’s elaborations, to provide additional demonstration that VT definitely and harshly “repudiated his earlier spiritual scientific knowledge”. For example, he wrote:

Tomberg wrote:...Because a disappointment is unavoidable if you came to Reading to meet me personally; you would not encounter the one who emerged as the author of the ‘Studies’ in the Thirties and who represented a centrally focussed spiritual science – simply for the reason that he isn’t there. He no longer exists. The author of the ‘Studies’ concerning the Bible and the Gospel was a man who made it his task to save Rudolf Steiner’s life work – spiritual science – from eradication and sclerosis in the thirties by bringing it back to its central focus. However, the inner descendent of this same person today believes that there is no spiritual science and never can be. Because even a spiritual science based on its central focus can only add to the mill of death. It will unavoidably become intellectualised and ‘fossilised’.

Also, spiritual science never existed because the essential criteria for every science must be that it can be tested, and that it applies universally. In reality, relating to the religious element, it was liberal theology or ‘theology on its own initiative’, and in an anthropological or psychological sense, a generalisation of personal, psychological experiences. Whilst the experiences themselves are mystical they cannot claim a status that is scientific – universally applicable or verifiable. It follows that so-called ‘spiritual science’ can only be psychologically convincing on the basis of a faithful endorsement by a particular group of people, objectively, however only on the basis of trust in the account of the witness, i.e. authority. No pope has ever demanded of mankind such an extent of trust as the ‘spiritual scientist’ or initiate Rudolf Steiner. The pontiffs represent tradition with hundreds of witnesses, whilst the ‘spiritual scientist’ draws on his own experiences and their interpretations and not out of tradition, and whether intentional or not, demands an authority which rivals that of the Pope. Alas, like the anti-Pope.
...
This is the spiritual change that has happened to the Valentin Tomberg of the Thirties. He no longer has a relationship to spiritual science, which he believes to be abstract. Also the physical change since then has been enormous. He celebrated his 70th birthday nearly a week ago, and recently underwent a major operation from which he has barely recovered. He finds socialising and communication with people rather difficult. Today he can only bear the life of a recluse, e.g. he spent his 70th birthday with a party of seven visitors, the consequence of which was a painful, sleepless night and a few days of depression! You see, dear Mr – you will not encounter the Valentin Tomberg of the Thirties. The distance which separates me from him today is as big as two incarnations. Really I should now have a different name; but for civil reasons that is not possible. Nothing lies further from me today or would be more tiring than to see the ashes of the Anthroposophical past raised up.

Letter reported in S. Prokofieff’s “The Case of Valentin Tomberg: Anthroposophy Or Jesuitism?” Temple Lodge, 1997.


Besides the above unequivocal thoughts, even in MoT, the impartial reader who is not led by arbitrary desires but by objectivity, can observe how, in the handful of passages that name him, Steiner gets subtly trivialized by Tomberg, reduced to an occultist among many others, most often referred to in association with Blavatsky. Here, Tomberg presents Steiner as a continuator of Antoine Fabre d’Olivet - a French occultist who, Tomberg tells us, initiated a prolific tradition of writing about the Akashic records - and as a predecessor of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who took the endeavor further. Then we are taught that Steiner, like many others, contributed his small portion to the illustration of the Akashic records, through a mix of vision and ...intellectual patching. There, he refers to Steiner as the owner of the “new failure” of flunking the prophecy of the imminent coming of a bodhisattva, after the Theosophists, to no avail, had failed their own. In another passage, we learn that Tomberg can’t do justice to the “grandiose tableau” of Occult Science, and to other cosmologic accounts, because that would mean digressing in classifications, only to lose the gist of the theme in a “sea of secondary things”. In short, Steiner’s figure is quietly and subtly spoiled, throughout the pages of MoT.

Tomberg wrote: It would therefore be a grave error to consider Fabre d’Olivet’s book as revelation or purely and simply an account of what he read in the Akasha chronicle. There is to be found there not only things where the author’s predilection plays a role but also quite marked prejudices (for example, that against Christianity). However, this does not bear any prejudice against his merit of having been an “angel of the tradition” at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and of having awoken—perhaps saved—some important aspects of the Hermetic tradition. For it was he who was the first to raise history to the level of Hermeticism—which, before Fabre d’Olivet, was strikingly lacking a vision of the history of the world. It is thanks to him that a current of esoteric history was set in motion, which was represented by Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, H. P. Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner—to name only the most well-known names. But since the time of Fabre d’Olivet esoteric historicism has undergone an unparalleled development: grandiose works have seen the light of day—for example, From the Akasha Chronicle and chapters on cosmic history in Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner. What we said above concerning the work of Fabre d’Olivet is equally applicable to his successors in the domain of esoteric historicism based on the Akasha chronicle. For whatever the extent of their experience of the Akasha chronicle may be, however imposing the results of their efforts to do justice to this experience may be, it remains nonetheless fragmentary—and it is to the intellectual effort of the authors, more or less crowned with success, that we owe the logical or artistic sequence of their pretended account from the Akasha chronicle. Each of these authors of esoteric history has gaps in his experience of its source—the Akasha chronicle—and has filled them by taking recourse to his own means, to his intelligence and erudition.
Tomberg wrote:It was more discreetly, and without putting a particular person in the limelight as candidate, that Dr. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophical Society, predicted the manifestation—again in the first half of the twentieth century—not of the new Maitreya Buddha or Kalki Avatar, but rather of the Bodhisattva, i.e. the individuality in the process of becoming the next Buddha, whose field of activity he hoped the Anthroposophical Society would serve. A new failure! This time the failure was due not to an error with regard to the awaited individuality, nor even with regard to the time of his activity, but rather to the overestimation of the Anthroposophical Society on the part of its founder— thus nothing became of that prediction.
Tomberg wrote:[Speaking of the Fall] Here we are faced with …[various cosmological accounts] and with the grandiose tableau of the spiritual evolution of the world through seven so-called “planetary” phases that Rudolf Steiner has bequeathed to the dumbfounded intellectuality of our century; lastly, with the cosmogonies and eschatologies —explicit or implicit—of Hermes Trismegistus, Plato, the Zohar and diverse gnostic schools of the first centuries of our era. May I be permitted to say straight away that, although I have had actual experience of comparing the whole range of these ideas and documents for more than forty years, I cannot treat them here as they deserve, that is I cannot classify them, extract from them the essential points of similarity or contrast, etc.. If I were to do so, I would drown the essence of the theme in a sea of secondary things.

That should be enough - for now.
Spiritual Science does not need any organization resembling the ancient churches, because it appeals to every single person. Every single person can, out of their own conscience and sound reason, visualize what Spiritual Science delivers and its results and can, from this perspective, confess to Spiritual Science. Rudolf Steiner
User avatar
Rodriel Gabrez
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2025 4:11 pm

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Rodriel Gabrez »

Federica wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:00 pm I want to attract attention to a few of Tomberg’s elaborations, to provide additional demonstration that VT definitely and harshly “repudiated his earlier spiritual scientific knowledge”. For example, he wrote:

Tomberg wrote:...Because a disappointment is unavoidable if you came to Reading to meet me personally; you would not encounter the one who emerged as the author of the ‘Studies’ in the Thirties and who represented a centrally focussed spiritual science – simply for the reason that he isn’t there. He no longer exists. The author of the ‘Studies’ concerning the Bible and the Gospel was a man who made it his task to save Rudolf Steiner’s life work – spiritual science – from eradication and sclerosis in the thirties by bringing it back to its central focus. However, the inner descendent of this same person today believes that there is no spiritual science and never can be. Because even a spiritual science based on its central focus can only add to the mill of death. It will unavoidably become intellectualised and ‘fossilised’.

Also, spiritual science never existed because the essential criteria for every science must be that it can be tested, and that it applies universally. In reality, relating to the religious element, it was liberal theology or ‘theology on its own initiative’, and in an anthropological or psychological sense, a generalisation of personal, psychological experiences. Whilst the experiences themselves are mystical they cannot claim a status that is scientific – universally applicable or verifiable. It follows that so-called ‘spiritual science’ can only be psychologically convincing on the basis of a faithful endorsement by a particular group of people, objectively, however only on the basis of trust in the account of the witness, i.e. authority. No pope has ever demanded of mankind such an extent of trust as the ‘spiritual scientist’ or initiate Rudolf Steiner. The pontiffs represent tradition with hundreds of witnesses, whilst the ‘spiritual scientist’ draws on his own experiences and their interpretations and not out of tradition, and whether intentional or not, demands an authority which rivals that of the Pope. Alas, like the anti-Pope.
...
This is the spiritual change that has happened to the Valentin Tomberg of the Thirties. He no longer has a relationship to spiritual science, which he believes to be abstract. Also the physical change since then has been enormous. He celebrated his 70th birthday nearly a week ago, and recently underwent a major operation from which he has barely recovered. He finds socialising and communication with people rather difficult. Today he can only bear the life of a recluse, e.g. he spent his 70th birthday with a party of seven visitors, the consequence of which was a painful, sleepless night and a few days of depression! You see, dear Mr – you will not encounter the Valentin Tomberg of the Thirties. The distance which separates me from him today is as big as two incarnations. Really I should now have a different name; but for civil reasons that is not possible. Nothing lies further from me today or would be more tiring than to see the ashes of the Anthroposophical past raised up.

Letter reported in S. Prokofieff’s “The Case of Valentin Tomberg: Anthroposophy Or Jesuitism?” Temple Lodge, 1997.


Besides the above unequivocal thoughts, even in MoT, the impartial reader who is not led by arbitrary desires but by objectivity, can observe how, in the handful of passages that name him, Steiner gets subtly trivialized by Tomberg, reduced to an occultist among many others, most often referred to in association with Blavatsky. Here, Tomberg presents Steiner as a continuator of Antoine Fabre d’Olivet - a French occultist who, Tomberg tells us, initiated a prolific tradition of writing about the Akashic records - and as a predecessor of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who took the endeavor further. Then we are taught that Steiner, like many others, contributed his small portion to the illustration of the Akashic records, through a mix of vision and ...intellectual patching. There, he refers to Steiner as the owner of the “new failure” of flunking the prophecy of the imminent coming of a bodhisattva, after the Theosophists, to no avail, had failed their own. In another passage, we learn that Tomberg can’t do justice to the “grandiose tableau” of Occult Science, and to other cosmologic accounts, because that would mean digressing in classifications, only to lose the gist of the theme in a “sea of secondary things”. In short, Steiner’s figure is quietly and subtly spoiled, throughout the pages of MoT.

Tomberg wrote: It would therefore be a grave error to consider Fabre d’Olivet’s book as revelation or purely and simply an account of what he read in the Akasha chronicle. There is to be found there not only things where the author’s predilection plays a role but also quite marked prejudices (for example, that against Christianity). However, this does not bear any prejudice against his merit of having been an “angel of the tradition” at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and of having awoken—perhaps saved—some important aspects of the Hermetic tradition. For it was he who was the first to raise history to the level of Hermeticism—which, before Fabre d’Olivet, was strikingly lacking a vision of the history of the world. It is thanks to him that a current of esoteric history was set in motion, which was represented by Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, H. P. Blavatsky and Rudolf Steiner—to name only the most well-known names. But since the time of Fabre d’Olivet esoteric historicism has undergone an unparalleled development: grandiose works have seen the light of day—for example, From the Akasha Chronicle and chapters on cosmic history in Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner. What we said above concerning the work of Fabre d’Olivet is equally applicable to his successors in the domain of esoteric historicism based on the Akasha chronicle. For whatever the extent of their experience of the Akasha chronicle may be, however imposing the results of their efforts to do justice to this experience may be, it remains nonetheless fragmentary—and it is to the intellectual effort of the authors, more or less crowned with success, that we owe the logical or artistic sequence of their pretended account from the Akasha chronicle. Each of these authors of esoteric history has gaps in his experience of its source—the Akasha chronicle—and has filled them by taking recourse to his own means, to his intelligence and erudition.
Tomberg wrote:It was more discreetly, and without putting a particular person in the limelight as candidate, that Dr. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Anthroposophical Society, predicted the manifestation—again in the first half of the twentieth century—not of the new Maitreya Buddha or Kalki Avatar, but rather of the Bodhisattva, i.e. the individuality in the process of becoming the next Buddha, whose field of activity he hoped the Anthroposophical Society would serve. A new failure! This time the failure was due not to an error with regard to the awaited individuality, nor even with regard to the time of his activity, but rather to the overestimation of the Anthroposophical Society on the part of its founder— thus nothing became of that prediction.
Tomberg wrote:[Speaking of the Fall] Here we are faced with …[various cosmological accounts] and with the grandiose tableau of the spiritual evolution of the world through seven so-called “planetary” phases that Rudolf Steiner has bequeathed to the dumbfounded intellectuality of our century; lastly, with the cosmogonies and eschatologies —explicit or implicit—of Hermes Trismegistus, Plato, the Zohar and diverse gnostic schools of the first centuries of our era. May I be permitted to say straight away that, although I have had actual experience of comparing the whole range of these ideas and documents for more than forty years, I cannot treat them here as they deserve, that is I cannot classify them, extract from them the essential points of similarity or contrast, etc.. If I were to do so, I would drown the essence of the theme in a sea of secondary things.

That should be enough - for now.
I'm a bit disappointed that you bring these quotations back up, given the amount of time that has been spent in this thread discussing how to interpret such remarks in the light of Tomberg's project. It's like pointing to the spirit-vacated Christ on the Cross and saying, "look, he's dead - there's no arguing with the fact that what we are looking at is a dead body." This kind of thinking absolutely must be transcended in order to read Tomberg.

Hint: Tomberg's letters to Bernhard Martin (more often quoted from Prokofieff's polemic than Martin's own book) are spiritual exercises in themselves.
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 2540
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Federica »

Rodriel Gabrez wrote: Mon Oct 13, 2025 10:59 pm I'm a bit disappointed that you bring these quotations back up, given the amount of time that has been spent in this thread discussing how to interpret such remarks in the light of Tomberg's project. It's like pointing to the spirit-vacated Christ on the Cross and saying, "look, he's dead - there's no arguing with the fact that what we are looking at is a dead body." This kind of thinking absolutely must be transcended in order to read Tomberg.

Hint: Tomberg's letters to Bernhard Martin (more often quoted from Prokofieff's polemic than Martin's own book) are spiritual exercises in themselves.

Dear Rodriel,
I am sincerely sorry for the unpleasant feeling, which I understand, and that there will be some more pain to go through, now or later on. I am saying this because the fact that you knew this letter, and see a spiritual exercise in it (that is, not an expression of repudiation of spiritual science, but instead an invitation to a spiritual exercise, safe that any communication can be transformed by the receiver in phenomenological exercise, of course) is indicative of an ingrained conviction.

I guess/hope Ashvin was not aware of these anti-spiritual scientific writings (there are more of them) and I can well understand that the subtle trivializing of Steiner’s figure in MoT may go unnoticed, given the sparse dissemination of the soft barbs throughout 700 plus pages, mostly in form of side notes. However, arguing that thoughts like the ones formed in such correspondence are not a repudiation of spiritual science but spiritual exercises, is grotesque, Rodriel. You can suggest that I’m gross and a bad student, you can clothe it under the claim that Tomberg has to be read in a particularly subtle and discerning way - you only make things worse. Because if there is one thing that is present in MoT, but cruelly missing in a letter such as this one, is precisely subtlety. And this needs to be brought to attention. I’m glad that Cleric is concerned with the inner aspect of this mystery, because he can. For my part, while I am primarily busy with maintaining objectivity and controlling the elastic pulls, I can surely do part of the outer work, which is useful too, I believe, as with all the pink above, for example.

A question for you: how on Earth would you explain that a spiritual exercise needs to involve calling Steiner an anti-pope, for example? Where is the subtelty in there, with or without reference to the RCC project? Unfortunately, it is beyond obviousness that Tomberg was thinking the least of all about the Unknown Friends in this letter, which rather stands out as the late monologue of an ailing, resentful soul. Whoever pretends he does not see it, is as if going around with hams on the eyes, as I may say borrowing from an airy-element idiom.


PS: When I said that VT has not been in the mood for doing, inwardly or outwardly, I mean for example this kind of mood:
Tomberg wrote:Dear Unknown Friend—you who are reading these lines written in 1965, after nearly fifty years of endeavour and experience in the domain of Hermeticism—I beg you not to regard what is written here as a simple wish made for the progression of Hermetic historicism, but as a testament making you who read these lines a trustee of such a task— if you accept. Therefore, please do all that you judge appropriate, but one thing I implore you not to do: to found an organisation, an association, a society or an order which would take charge of that. For the tradition lives not thanks to organisations, but in spite of them. One should content oneself purely and simply with friendship in order to preserve the life of a tradition; it should not be entrusted to the care of the embalmers and mummifiers par excellence that organisations are, save for the one founded by Jesus Christ.
Spiritual Science does not need any organization resembling the ancient churches, because it appeals to every single person. Every single person can, out of their own conscience and sound reason, visualize what Spiritual Science delivers and its results and can, from this perspective, confess to Spiritual Science. Rudolf Steiner
User avatar
AshvinP
Posts: 6413
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by AshvinP »

Federica wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 10:39 am I’m glad that Cleric is concerned with the inner aspect of this mystery, because he can. For my part, while I am primarily busy with maintaining objectivity and controlling the elastic pulls, I can surely do part of the outer work, which is useful too, I believe, as with all the pink above, for example.

Here we have a key. It's not about Tomberg or Steiner per se. It's about your admitted feeling of discomfort and concern that 'outer work' is being neglected, that the vertical dimension of meditation-introspection is taking too much focus, that 'normal thinking' is becoming shameful, that we aren't focused enough on 'going east then north', that 'practical occult science' is disregarded, and so on. It just so happens that Tomberg is just as much of a critic of that kind of 'outer work' through organisations, societies, and so on, as we are here. Cleric referred to it as 'intellectual combinatorics' which could lead to a faster degeneration of spiritual science than the physical sciences. VT takes Anthroposophy and other esoteric socieities to task for it, because he sees this same danger of degeneration, for all of the inner reasons we have thoroughly discussed on recent threads.
"They only can acquire the sacred power of self-intuition, who within themselves can interpret and understand the symbol... those only, who feel in their own spirits the same instinct, which impels the chrysalis of the horned fly to leave room in the involucrum for antennae yet to come."
User avatar
Federica
Posts: 2540
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 2:30 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Federica »

AshvinP wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 1:51 pm
Federica wrote: Tue Oct 14, 2025 10:39 am I’m glad that Cleric is concerned with the inner aspect of this mystery, because he can. For my part, while I am primarily busy with maintaining objectivity and controlling the elastic pulls, I can surely do part of the outer work, which is useful too, I believe, as with all the pink above, for example.

Here we have a key. It's not about Tomberg or Steiner per se. It's about your admitted feeling of discomfort and concern that 'outer work' is being neglected, that the vertical dimension of meditation-introspection is taking too much focus, that 'normal thinking' is becoming shameful, that we aren't focused enough on 'going east then north', that 'practical occult science' is disregarded, and so on. It just so happens that Tomberg is just as much of a critic of that kind of 'outer work' through organisations, societies, and so on, as we are here. Cleric referred to it as 'intellectual combinatorics' which could lead to a faster degeneration of spiritual science than the physical sciences. VT takes Anthroposophy and other esoteric socieities to task for it, because he sees this same danger of degeneration, for all of the inner reasons we have thoroughly discussed on recent threads.
Enough 2 cents psychologizing, Ashvin. Please employ your energies in more useful ways. Some have been indicated in this very thread, though you don't seem to notice.
Spiritual Science does not need any organization resembling the ancient churches, because it appeals to every single person. Every single person can, out of their own conscience and sound reason, visualize what Spiritual Science delivers and its results and can, from this perspective, confess to Spiritual Science. Rudolf Steiner
User avatar
Cleric
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:40 pm

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Post by Cleric »

I want to start with something that I intended to write earlier in connection with the perfection of the intellectual soul and the role of the Church, but I felt that at that point it would only add to the crossfire. Naturally, our experience of the intellectual and spiritual souls is bound to be a little mushy initially. We can present this like this:

Image

To truly differentiate these two aspects, however, we would have to consider the stream of German Idealism. This historical process is the image of the ‘sharpening’ of the intellectual self, reaching its zenith in Hegel, where the whole of reality is seen in pure thought. Note – this doesn’t mean pure theory, but the pure experience of thought. This is the ‘stuff’ of reality, so to speak.

Effectively, to reach that point, we need to consider what was quoted by Federica earlier:
RS wrote:It is the true fulfillment of what men were seeking in the time now past, in the last third of the Nineteenth Century—true freedom—freedom in their conception of the world, in their research and even in their opinions.
We should take a moment to appreciate what this implies. It means that we need to peel away even our deeper convictions, like the belief in God. This is important: we may believe that because we have spiritual thoughts and feel that our thought life condenses from within a deeper stratum of existence, we have overcome the intellectual soul. It’s far more likely, however, that we’re still in the mushy state depicted above. One can be quite an occultist but still be very instinctive in their thinking. To truly differentiate these stages of inner life, we need to pass, as if through a pinhole, where we’re basically reduced to naked and alone thought-being in universal phenomenal space. We can depict this in the following way:

Image

So it is the stream of German Idealism that, in a way, has brought the intellectual soul from a blurry blob to a crisp point (in the way that light rays can be brought from a blurry spot to a laser-like point, by adjusting the lens focus). Then, it is PoF that actually steps across the pinhole and gradually begins to substantiate the lower cone from above. Only now we can gradually turn from a being that thinks instinctively about reality (from the background as it were) to reality’s actual process of becoming.

Now, let’s move forward and see that this mushy region is actually much more treacherous than we may imagine. On what foundation does VT build a work like MoT? Quite obviously, on the stream of Hermeticism. It is a vast topic if we are to get into the full details of the latter, but in very broad lines, we may say that it basically preserves and nourishes Wisdom that took form in the Egyptian period, but has necessarily been rechewed many times through the millennia. Most importantly, this Wisdom has been accommodated in a special way in the last millennium, in the age of the ripening intellectual soul. This has proliferated in the branches of Kabbalah, magic, alchemy, and astrology, that is, in the various forms of Western occultism.

Let’s try to get a really living experience of the structure of all this. For example, what are the Arcana? To get a truer understanding, we need to move beyond definitions and into actual deeper experience. So when we speak of an arcanum in the deep sense (and not only of the symbolic precipitation), we need to loosen from the bodily spectrum and be fully active in soul space. In a sense, we must find the degrees of freedom in our soul body, such as to assume various ‘soul asanas’. These don't imply static geometric forms but must be grasped in their temporal nature, as ways in which destiny can be patterned. As a rough analogy, we can imagine how the airplane’s control surfaces – the ailerons, elevators, rudder, flaps – change their positions and thus experience various forces and torques against the airflow. In a similar way, when through our conscious activity we meditate on an arcanum, we assume a specific configuration of our soul’s ‘control surfaces’ and as a result experience the ‘rubbing’ of becoming in specific ways. This is critical to understand. We should move away from the spatial domination and grasp things more in the sense of the video feedback metaphor – our activity is written down and is recursively embedded in the phenomenal configuration of reality. As such, the arcana reveal specific patterns and lawfulnesses – how certain soul activities play out in the flow of destiny.

There’s no theory here, no mental models – we’re truly living like an expanded fluid in soul space and investigating how our inner intents bend the flow, how they are resisted or assisted. In this way, the arcana can be grasped as basic patterns of inner gesture and feedback in soul space. These patterns form a kind of axiomatic basis.

Here, we should get one thing clear. Just because we’re freed from the sensory spectrum and live in true soul (or dream) space, it doesn’t mean that we have transcended the intellectual soul. We can live in the astral with our intellectual soul or even sentient soul. This is also why they are called ‘souls’. We shouldn’t equate the intellectual soul with the brain-bound intellect. When we live in the Hermetic Wisdom in the astral, we metamorphose through the axiomatic arcanic patterns. This is very similar to the way we live with our intellect in the axiomatic patterns of formal logic or mathematics. In fact, the latter can be considered a more condensed version (intersected with the bodily spectrum) of what we live through in the intellectual soul in purely astral space. So, what is definitive about the life of the intellectual soul is not the manipulation of mental images in our mind, but the transformations from soul asana to soul asana. The latter give us a stable form in astral space, just like we feel as a stable functioning ego when we metamorphose from thought to thought.

Western occultism in the last millennium revolves around these astral experiences. They are expressed symbolically. Obviously, such symbols are always in danger of remaining completely abstract, as is often the case in popular astrology and Kabbalah, where the soul metamorphoses have been reduced to a form of calculation. In this respect, VT performs outstandingly to continuously lead the aspirant toward the true inner experience of the arcana.

Yet, we should feel how the Hermetic Wisdom is still basically dominated by the intellectual soul. I repeat that this doesn’t in the least imply that this Wisdom is abstract and brain-bound! Not at all. However, we must be conscious that we can be in a full-blown astral space and still experience things as shaped by the intellectual soul. It is not that our soul is filled with abstract intellectual tokens, but that our soul metamorphoses from state into state, in a kind of choreography of arcanic asanas. If we ask, “How do I transform from one arcanic asana to another?”, we would feel that this is the essential nature of what intellectual thinking is. In our ordinary intellect we also transform from asana to asana, except that most of the soul depth is completely unconscious. We are aware only the symbolic extract at the tip of our focus – the mental image that symbolizes the whole hidden soul context.

All of this amounts to the following warning: just because we are in full-blown astral experience, we shouldn’t imagine that we grasp the soul world in some 'objective' form. And this goes much deeper than the standard warnings for the possible illusions proceeding from our unprocessed desires and traits of character (of which Hermeticism is fully aware).

To see what we’re talking about, consider the following. What would the Hermeticist say when asked, “What is the origin of the arcana?” The answer is clear and correct – these are the archetypal manifestations of the Divine Mind. However, if we try to feel this with the needed depth (and not only as a general truth), we’ll have to admit that in that region we’re already bordering on the inexplicable, on the mysterious. It is not that Hermeticism postulates this bordering as some hard Kantian divide. Far from it. Hermeticism is evolutionary open. Yet, this mysterious region is the kind of upper bound to which Western occultism effectively reaches. How this mysterious core is experienced and looked upon depends on whether the flavor of Hermeticism is Christ-oriented (like with VT) or is Christless (like in Bardon). In any case, we can schematically represent things in this way:

Image

Please note once again that what we present here concerns true supersensible experience – actual existence in the soul strata of reality. Nevertheless, it also strangely resembles the way we grasp our intellectual life. And this shouldn’t be surprising in the face of what has been described so far. In our thinking life we build a kind of mental fractal, starting with some fundamental (axiomatic) concepts and building on them into the manifold language. Something analogous happens in the Hermetic experience of the supersensible, except that it is translated into true soul space. The Arcanic soul asanas are like the axioms or letters of existence (the God given building blocks), and the details of creation are like tracing these axiomatic patterns into their manifold interplays. This is why this stage of initiation is called (including by Steiner) learning to read the occult script.

If we try to get behind the axioms of mathematics, through the axioms, we fail. Anything that we derive from them throws us into the manifold combinations. In the same way, we cannot shift to Imagination by simply doing more intellectual thinking. This is a core flavor of the Hermetic soul stance. To move away from the manifoldness and abstraction, we seek our being in the Arcanic soul asanas. However, we cannot reach behind these asanas by applying them (transforming through them) in new combinations. This leads us down into manifoldness again. Thus, the Christ-oriented hermeticism seeks the mystical union with the Logos as the only sensible way to reach deeper into the origin of the Arcane. The whole question now is, can we even say something about that experience?

In 1879 something significant takes place. It’s not about the personality of Rudolf Steiner, but about the recognition of an objective milestone in the collective development of humanity. Now Wisdom pours Inspiratively from the spiritual worlds in a way that the spiritual soul can grasp. We should be clear that we’re dealing with something new here. Even the old Rosicrucians, who were also largely in the Hermetic stream but brought the realization of the Christ impulse to the highest levels possible at the time, were still dominated by the intellectual soul and its Arcanic asanas.

To make the transition to the new and higher form of cognition, we need to consider in full seriousness the needed inner inversion on which Steiner was always stressing (for example, here, where it is called ‘reversal’). Not only that we need to understand what this means, but we also should very clearly understand why it clashes with the disposition of the intellectual soul.

To understand this transition, we need to consider the two cones touching at the tip in full seriousness. If we proceed from within the Hermetic stream, we’re primed to expect the spiritual soul to manifest as some even more unified wholeness, which allows us to live in the mysterious core. But in reality, something seemingly opposite happens. Our soul is torn apart. Instead of monolithic unity, it becomes the arena of multiplicity of beings. This is the critical thing. If we consider everything only from within the intellectual soul (I repeat – even if we are in full-blown Cosmic experience, metamorphosing through Arcanic soul-asanas), this multiplicity will immediately be mistaken for something threatening, as something dragging us down to the secondary, tertiary, etc., manifoldness of the Arcane.

Now consider what happens when the initiate in this new domain of experience precipitates concepts and communicates them? Well, in the first approximation, they’ll be seen as mere intellectual metaphysics. For the hermeticist, this ‘initiate’ is delving into the secondary, tertiary, etc. manifoldness. He hasn’t even reached the major Arcana! Those who are a little more positively predisposed (as VT is) would say, “I completely accept this as valid and maybe even correct etheric vision. However, as far as the depths of the soul are concerned, we need to retrace our existence through the major Arcana and into the mystical union with the Logos.” In other words, the hermeticist of the second millennium would have a hard time conceiving that going beyond the Arcanic asanas would present highly manifold experiences.

At the heart of the Michaelic impulse is the gaining of consciousness within the upper cone, where we increasingly grasp our being as a point of balance within Cosmic multiplicity. Of course, this multiplicity is not manifoldness of images (i.e, it’s not external multiplicity). It is the differentiation of the currents of our innermost life, which prove to be gathered from all over the Cosmos. For example, one of the first Michaelic Inspirations is the realization that in our soul life, the Lu-Christ-Ahr streams intermingle. Again – not as some abstract idea, but as actual differentiation (as if Michael’s sword does the differentiation of the threads) of our innermost spiritual life. Such an actual experience can only be had once we pass the inversion point into multiplicity. Conversely, if we are at the threshold of the Arcane and expect that the next step will be the mystical union with the Logos, we practically exclude the upper cone and expect that the lower cone will have an ever-tighter tip. Needless to say, this precludes us from having true understanding of our deeper spiritual being (beyond the Arcane soul-metamorphoses). Such things are subtle but they need to be considered. For example, VT writes:
VT wrote:One ought not to occupy oneself with evil, other than in keeping a certain
distance and a certain reserve, if one wishes to avoid the risk of paralysing the
creative élan and a still greater risk—that of furnishing arms to the powers of
evil. One can grasp profoundly, i.e. intuitively, only that which one loves.
Love is the vital element of profound knowledge, intuitive knowledge. Now,
one cannot love evil. Evil is therefore unknowable in its essence. One can
understand it only at a distance, as an observer of its phenomenology.
On one hand, cautioning about preoccupying oneself with evil is completely valid. This is the same disease as those who can’t stop feeding on conspiracy theories. Yet, if we believe that evil can only be studied from a distance (as an observer of its phenomenology), we’ll never suspect that this evil is inseparably intermingled in our very spiritual blood. And it is true that we know only that which we love. It stands to reason that we should not love evil for its manifestations. However, even evil has Divine origins in the Tree of Life. Thus, we can know the Divine concealed in it. So it is clear – if we want to know evil only from a distance (by recognizing its external effects), we implicitly bar our way to true Michaelic self-knowledge, because to gain the latter, we must pass through the pinhole and have our inner being decomposed. Then our soul becomes the stage of a Cosmic Drama where macrocosmic spiritual beings push and pull the first-person flow of becoming in certain directions, while we are only a fine point of balance that leans and gives greater way to one or another.

So, even if we put aside the concrete question of VT for a moment, everything above can still be considered and internalized. It is not difficult to see that it does apply to most of what has become Western occultism. From biographic notes, we can see that VT started his spiritual journey in Hermeticism before he encountered Steiner. But we can also see how the Hermetic thread remained running parallel through his life and ultimately became dominant once again. As such, we can appreciate the masterful teaching of the Arcane asanas. We can literally learn to swim in the astral waters free from the body by absorbing this Hermetic Wisdom. Yet, it still seems that he couldn’t reach a tipping point. The Christ remains veiled in the mysterious core asymptotically approached in the Arcane soul-asanas. One may say, “Well, where VT stops, the Michaelic consciousness of the multiplicity in the higher spiritual world (Devachan), beings.” Yet, the trouble is that without knowing about this upper cone from another source, we’re unlikely to ever overcome the sense of existence implied in the lower cone. Not only that, but even the idea of it will be found antipathetic, as one would hardly be able to overcome the sense that it drags him back down into manifoldness.

We should feel that since the event of 1879, the way Steiner could speak of the spiritual realities is different than anything that could be found in the past traditions. Yes, surely one can always strike it out as mere metaphysical speculations or, at best, multiply refracted etheric visions, but if we are willing to follow, it is clear that such communications proceed from actual living together with the streams of beings. All traditions have spoken about such beings, but through the Michaelic impulse, we attain to a supersensible stance that allows us to live as a conscious spirit within the multiplicity of spirits. For example, take something like “The Spirits of Wisdom poured from themselves the etheric body of man.” For a person in ordinary consciousness, this is simply a fantastic image. One doesn’t even know what to do with it. We do not perceive Spirits of Wisdom, nor an etheric body, let alone one pouring into the other. For the Hermeticist, things could be more substantial. They can accept this as a valid etheric vision, but ultimately, they would say, “Yeah, but you are forgetting about Oneness – that is, the fundamental life of the Soul within the Arcane asanas. What you say may be correct, but it ultimately concerns the manifoldness of the created Cosmos, not the tracing back to the original Divine.” Only when we seek to align our first-person experiences with those of the multiplicity of higher spirits can we find the true origin of the images, which reflect direct experiences.

Finally, I think it becomes much more comprehensible why one could feel an appeal in the Church mothership. We should simply get in the shoes of a Hermetic initiate who asymptotically seeks the Christ experience within the mysterious core. All the details of spiritual science are certainly interesting, but they feel as breaking down the Arcane into manifoldness. As such, the Church feels like an ally, because it preserves the mystical attitude toward the Divine.

I want to emphasize that none of this is written with ill feelings toward VT. From what I can feel about his soul, he has been completely sincere and idealistic in everything he did. I only see it that he could not reach the tipping point from the Hermetic tradition to the new influx of Michaelic Inspiration. He absorbed as much as he could from spiritual science, but in the end, it felt fragmentary compared to the alive and warm unity of the Arcane asanas in soul space encircling the central mystery. In that way, he could not reach actual consciousness of the Devachan, where we can only know ourselves as a spirit embedded in the superimposed flow of multiplicity of spirits. As such, at the upper edge of the Imaginative world, he could only anticipate the Logos in mystical fervor.

PS: One may object that VT has spoken about Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition. And this is true. In fact, I find his explanation of Inspiration as “thinking together” very apt. The fact, however, is that these modes of cognition can be understood even in our ordinary consciousness, because as we know, there’s always something of them present at any point of existence. It is a whole other thing when this Inspiration reaches such magnitude that we experience how the hierarchies think our flow of becoming at different scales. I think it is easy to agree that such kinds of experiences and their descriptions can hardly be found in VT’s work. There are plenty of references to the members of the hierarchies, but they still sound in the more traditional Christian way, as entities, much like John had to still depict the beings of the Apocalypse.
Post Reply