Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Cleric]

It occurred to me this evening that there is perhaps a better way to describe the Lazarus-John mystery in more directly anthroposophical terms. Consider the following:

Through natural science, the human being has selflessly given himself over to to the empirically observable world such that he has been emptied of certain levels of his soul organization. His life of feeling and morality, for instance, have escaped his focus, in order that he cultivate the very important independence of thought. The scientific sacrifice was actually a kind of soul death, a dying of the feeling and the moral will in order for the I to come alive in thought. Now, as the spiritual scientific impulse begins to reverse the direction of human evolution, from its midpoint of the logical intellect in the mineral world of sense up into the spiritual worlds, a new death takes place. This is the death of the world of mineral concepts. These mineral concepts - the carriers of the stability of the empirical world into the realm of thought - crumble to dust in thinking, and from the decaying matter living forms sprout forth. Spiritual science is the death and resurrection of man's conceptual life, of the layer of thinking for which he formerly sacrificed his deeper soul levels. Spiritual science is a mill of death whose glory is resurrected thought. It dies on the Cross with its inaugurator and thenceforth must live on in ever new and enlivened forms.

Alright, let's follow this thread. What is the nature of the resurrected thoughts? What place do they have in our Earthly life? This is the main question.

Now, it is true that as soon as we express the resurrected thoughts through verbal or pictorial symbols, they already sink into the mill. But this holds for everything. Even Christ's Words are mere dust if we do not seek the inner life from whence they precipitate. It's the same with SS.

What is concerning is that it seems VT has gradually become convinced that giving an outer form of the living resurrected thoughts unavoidably leads to fossilization. Thus he says:

[it] doesn’t mean that there isn’t and never was knowledge of the spirit.

But knowledge of the spirit is not science but inner certainty – that means it is a condition that cannot be imposed on someone else. In any case it has to forego any claim to universal validity and scrutiny. It is based on the most personal inner experience and can possibly only be shared with very close companions who have been joined through destiny.

Let's try to give an Imaginative form of what is here being spoken of:



Thus, we have Divine rays (must be thought of from a first-person perspective) - the human souls - that continuously shed down the dead thought forms, just like we continuously shed dead skin cells. At the same time, by deepening our inner life, we find the inner volume of our soul cone, and live there in resurrected thoughts (the wiggly lines) which are the living, vibrant inner intuitive gestures, sparks of the Logos. Some of them can the talked about, otherwise MoT wouldn't be written. But there's an even deeper stratum of intimate experiences that are better to be kept private or at most shared with those with whom, because of destiny, we have special inner kinship.

What is this special inner kinship? It can be thought of as the streams of our destinies meander within the wings of a common Angelic being. It's like these destiny bundles form tight and small spiritual families that can eventually share even deeper experiences, but if these resurrected experiences are shared with other Angelic families, it would be like speaking in slightly different languages. The result will be that we talk over each other, everyone burying the other under piles of dead thought forms. They may not be dead for ourselves, but when the other person is not of the same kin, it is more likely that they will receive only the dead husks. There's no incentive to exercise inner flexibility such that the inner life of the other party can be known, and which alone would make the dead husks appear as something precipitating from vibrant spiritual life.

Now, what would happen if we decide to expand the sphere of this inner kinship? Well, we're growing into a greater group where we can share our inner life only if we cultivate the mentioned inner flexibility. This forms an inner language of resurrected thoughts. In ordinary life we can have shared experiences with those who can express their sensory, feeling, and intellectual life in our language. When the soul streams of a larger group are to share in their deeper life, beyond their most immediate kin, their destinies must be cohered within the wings of an even greater being, an Archangel. We can portray this in the following way:



(of course, we depict things as spatially separated, but in reality it could be better to imagine the soul cones as superimposed one within the other and differing in 'frequency'. Thus, the more 'out of phase' our soul cone is with another, the more 'remote' it feels to us. The spatially depicted cross-referencing would correspond to gradual frequency attunement between soul perspectives.

Try to feel the contrast. In the first case, at a certain point we give up on the dream of having a shared life in our resurrected thoughts. The deeper these thoughts become, the more isolated (in respect to other thinking human beings) we feel, because it is as if we approach the Divine in a unique language tailored only for ourselves. The resurrected thoughts are not shareable because they are highly dependent on our unique soul context. If we try to take them into a wider context, they die. They are strictly adapted to our uniquely personal soul soil. At most, these resurrected thoughts may take root in those souls of closest spiritual kin (the Angelic bundle), just like an organ transplant has a lesser chance of rejection if it comes from a close relative. (thus, the fact that VT was gradually led to the life of a recluse, where he focused in prayer and contemplation on his uniquely personal communication with God, untranslatable to other souls)

All of this gives a very specific flavor of our vision for humanity's spiritual evolution. If we assume that the soul bundles have no chance of coherence, then trying to communicate their innermost resurrected thoughts is like trying to transplant organs in all directions, which, at large, results in mass rejections. Then one can conclude that a different path must be sought. We need to accept the fact that our life remains split between a more external, relatively sharable existence, and the mystical interior that can be experienced only in the intuitive language tailored uniquely for ourselves. In respect to this depth of resurrected intuitive life, we feel as if we belong to a different personal language group. For each other, we are like Columbus, who tries to communicate with the natives through gestures and signs. As such, human life takes these two distinct flavors. Through the communicative external means, we can at most lead another soul to the threshold of the inner chamber (such as by MoT). But from thence, the soul begins to learn its uniquely personal language in which the Logos expresses itself. The hope is that someday, we'll grow beyond the inner Tower of Babel, and will meet each other in the future, at even greater depth, in a purely spiritual communion. In the meantime, the ideal of this future meeting in the Logos can only be maintained by a specifically tailored social structure. Without it, chaos will quickly issue, because souls can drift away, and because by definition they cannot share anything about their inner trajectories, there's no way to synchronize them either. Thus, a higher authority is needed, which is trusted to cohere the general direction in which the souls are following their personal inspirations. It's like saying: "I cannot share my innermost experiences with you, but we can participate together in the common rituals. Hopefully, this would ensure a common direction of our innermost lives."

The second image depicts the developing inner life which becomes flexible and yearns to share in the life of resurrected thoughts. If things are understood in this way, the death mill becomes null. I mean, it is there, but souls no longer stumble in the dead forms. Instead, they are only gestures expressing the vibrant inner life that we share.

Now, one may object that I contradict myself. Before, I said that the soul can only pass completely alone through the narrowing. Now I speak of shared inner life. There's no contradiction, however. There would be a contradiction only if this common language is artificially built as an alternative way of encoding our Earthly life experiences. This would indeed be a completely arbitrary attempt to 'standardize' our sensory-intellectual life into a common palette. What we speak of, however, is that everyone individually passes through the narrowing and finds the resurrected Logoic gestures. These are the shareable inner realities that can be conveyed in concepts. The key is that we individually live and breathe this inner reality, this deeper context, and gradually communicate and share in it, just like we do for the Earthly context.

[AshvinP]

In that sense, it is not that difficult to have higher consciousness of certain more general evolutionary rhythms. The more we zoom into the concrete circumstances in the here and now, the more specific everything becomes. As a crude example, it could be relatively easy to be inspired that a house needs to be built, but the more we zoom into the concrete unfoldment of the idea, the more we have to make concrete decisions for the fractally-like exploding details. These decisions can be logically reasoned, but can also be inspired. In the perfect scenario, at every decision level, when decisions flow in the curvatures of positive inspiration, we should feel that the symphonic harmony is maintained along the full depth. Yet, at any of these decision levels, different inspirations can intervene and veer off the general plan.

At least this is the way things feel to me at present. So it's not that VT has glimpsed the full-spectrum plan of the house, from top to bottom, and saw that it had to be built of stone, yet decided the 'step back' from this intuition and, in opposition to it, he went to build it of bricks. It rather makes more sense to me that he saw both Steiner's work and his own as agreeing in the general idea, but after some time he felt that the way Steiner started to work out the details wouldn't lead to good results, and thus, he sought his own intuitions for the details.


...

This basically splits human knowledge into the practical sphere and the sphere of mystical revelation, which is a matter of personal experience that shouldn't be talked about much (does this remind us of Eugene, who says that his meditative experiences are too intimate to share?). In other words, we should clearly feel that the tension between the inner, the intimate, the spiritual, and the outer, the conceptual, which is brought into contact with the mystical, will unavoidably sclerotize it. Thus, the failed spiritual soul, where the Imaginative thinking gradient would have to exist, must instead remain as a kind of buffer zone that protects the sacred from the profane.

Cleric,

I would like to get a better orientation to what is being expressed here, since even if it doesn't turn out to apply directly to VT in the way imagined, it is surely helpful for all of us who are somewhere along the gradient of these soul dynamics and tensions when pursuing higher knowledge.

So we are saying an initiate like Steiner was able to work out his detailed spiritual science because he could not only attune to the Intuitive perspectives of Beings who think the grand evolutionary rhythms (which perhaps quite a few others like VT did as well), but could also remain concentrated along the entire gradient from such Beings to the ordinary human sensory perspective. Thus, he could trace how various Beings along the hierarchical gradient contribute their shaping to the general evolutionary intents, which then naturally provides insight into how precisely the familiar imaginative perspective and its lawful metamorphosis takes shape, as if witnessing the spiritual Cosmos from the terminal circumference of this symphonic sphere of scale-relative interfering activity. In other words, it becomes easier and easier to trace how the structured Intuitive potential is filtered through the superimposed perspectives of Beings within the spiritual and soul worlds until it manifests as the sequential frames of ordinary sensory experience. 

Is that about accurate? If so, we can then distinguish another significant individuality, "X", who attunes to the Intuitive perspectives that think the grand evolutionary rhythms, but for whatever reason, cannot trace the Intuitive potential as it filters along the entire gradient. Perhaps it is due to the general mystical mood/stance that you have very helpfully illustrated several times. This X, due to the general unwillingness and inability to remain concentrated along the entire gradient of relative perspectives, begins to see the spiritual scientific communications, especially those focusing on the dynamics of the physical plane, to be increasingly arbitrary and speculative. They feel like an intellectual exercise in filling in the 'gaps' of natural science with patches of supersensible perceptions as it suits the soul in question. In that sense, it's not much unlike what we criticized Steiner for previously in some of his assertions about human physiology or astronomy, etc. There is a concern that the supersensible experience, which, according to X, is properly a domain of personal inner experience and warmth of certainty, diffuses too much into the sensory-intellectual domain and colors our understanding of it. 

Except for this X, it is not only a few assertions here or there that are problematic, but entire swaths of spiritual scientific claims about the physical domain. For example, X may write:


"Christian Hermeticism therefore has no pretension to rival either religion or official science. He who is searching here for the “true religion”, the “true philosophy”, or the “true science” is looking in the wrong direction. Christian Hermeticists are not masters, but servants. They do not have the pretension (that is, in any case, somewhat puerile) of elevating themselves above the holy faith of the faithful, or above the fruits of the admirable efforts of workers in science, or above the creations of artistic genius. Hermeticists are not guarding the secret of future discoveries in the sciences. They do not know, for example, just as everyone at present is ignorant of it, the effective remedy against cancer. Moreover, they would be monsters if they were to guard the secret of the remedy against this bane of humanity without communicating it. No, they do not know it, and they will be the first to recognise the superiority of the future benefactor of the human race, that savant who will discover this remedy."


For those familiar, this feels like a direct commentary on Anthroposophical claims that the phenomenon of cancer can be spiritually researched and perhaps permanently cured through properly developed remedies. X believes that such endeavors are not born from the genuine tracing of supersensible experience along the gradient of manifestation (which is not even quite possible from his perspective), but are rather an overestimation of the intellect's ability to understand and communicate intimate mystical experiences. Such experiences do not in themselves provide any clarity on something like the phenomenal dynamics of cancer. He feels like such an endeavor will inevitably degenerate into a pseudo-science that simply competes with the mainstream medical community to develop its parallel homeopathic remedies. It will probably bring true spiritual endeavors into disrepute, just like the 19th-century spiritualists who tried to convince the public through channeled communications from departed souls.

To be clear, I am not saying that the above is how I view the situation with VT, but I am trying to remain open to the possibilities and get a better feel for them. Is the above a decent approximation of what you were describing (of course, leaving out many details of how supersensible research actually unfolds, although it may be helpful to explore that more as well, if possible)? 

[AshvinP]

If we are going to talk about VT becoming critical of spiritual science, we should also include those Catholic works where he endorsed and praised it. The most critical comments were in private letters to single individuals, whereas the supporting and praiseworthy comments were in published works meant for the wider public. That is not to say these comments are mutually exclusive or contradictory - when we think through the wider context of his work carefully, I think they are easily reconciled, for reasons already discussed. For example, as late as 1972, he publicly expressed:

"The teaching on the heavenly hierarchies was renewed in the first quarter of the 20th century by the great Austrian seer and thinker Rudolf Steiner. The depth and breadth of Steiner's contribution to a new understanding of the spiritual hierarchies is such that this theme cannot be seriously considered today without taking into account his remarkable achievement, which, as far as wealth of stimulation, depth and multiplicity of viewpoints, inner lack of contradiction, and organic cohesion, is not to be compared with any seer or thinker - whether of the present, of the Middle Ages, or of antiquity - for it towers above them all."

I'd say you're right that this is generally the case - that Tomberg saw fit to be more critical in his personal communications. When one weights these personal communications against the full the context of his output and activities, one can easily come to understand that Tomberg's speech was highly pedagogical in nature, specifically crafted to have the most beneficial effect on the particular audience. When he wrote to Bernhard Martin, for instance, he was writing to a person who he knew full well was highly familiar with his work. He could reasonably and responsibly assume (or at least hope) that Martin would assess the personal statements being made in light of the broader context and come to the conclusion that the words are meant not as discursively interpreted opinions but as instructions and invitations for action. Statements like "spiritual science never existed" and the like are simply not meant to be read as statements of fact. Every such statement points directly back to the center of all Tomberg's activities: the Lazarus-John mystery. The above statement is to be read: "When Lazarus was raised as the unnamed beloved disciple, it was as if he never existed. Like Lazarus, Rudolf Steiner and his impulse have radiated their life forces out into the word such that the outer form could no longer be held together. These concentrated life forces were a source of death for their inaugurator who willingly took this death upon himself in order that it would become a spring of life for the future. Now come, let us enter this mill of death and make it our own! And may it be to the glory of the Lord!" Did Martin take Tomberg's personal comments this way? That's hard to tell from his book, to be honest. Anyway, you seem to be more or less on board with this. Just figured I'd elaborate this crucial point once more in hopes that it will land with others here.

Thanks, Rodriel, that is a very helpful and pictorial way of expressing the comment. It does seem to me, in general, that Tomberg is speaking about these things with more depth than we probably imagine him to be. That is just the undeniable impression one gets from contemplating his wider work and activities. Everything seems to be contemplated by him a few levels deeper than is apparent from the explicit content that makes it onto the page, either privately or publicly. Now that I am reviewing Salman's biography and particularly the section surrounding the 'controversies' with Anthroposophy, which contains many of these letters in a more complete form, that fact has only become more apparent. That's not to say we can't get to the bottom of what he means in these comments, of course, but rather it does seem to take some concentrated inner effort and imaginatively feeling our way through the lines of reasoning, always understood within the wider spiritual context that is so far available to our discernment.

[Federica]

A sincere and full confession can and should open one's eyes to the deeply problematic and incongruous situation of one's life in the "mechanistic and habituated modern environment." This very awakening, even if fleeting, is a doorway toward higher levels of spiritual development. You might then say, "that's all well and good, but then where is the apparatus for helping that soul along that path of higher spiritual development? The Church has nothing of the sort on offer." Ah, but the liturgy is right there. The Gospels are right there. These grab hold of the partially awakened soul and begin to work imaginatively into the mechanized thought life. The very serious question, though, becomes: is this process in and of itself sufficient to take the soul all the way, to lead humanity into the Age? Peter himself asked the same question. "Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper [...] ? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?" To which the Lord replied, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." So we see that John is needed! But John is the one who underwent the 4 day death-sleep and was raised, thereafter following after Peter into the tomb. Peter needn't pay much mind to John, as per the direct instruction of Christ Jesus. He is there working behind the scenes. So to those souls within the Church who have been awakened to the discordance of our time and been thus spurred toward spiritual development through Peter, one can offer the sincere hope that they find themselves increasingly in the company of John who will assist them and fortify them on their spiritual ascent. Those who fancy themselves Lazarus-John's disciples can decide whether or not this path of sacrifice, the one modeled by Tomberg-unknown, is a worthy one.

Rodriel,
What is the "Age" you speak of above? I have in mind the possibility that Tomberg thought that the Consciosuness Soul impulse had failed, and I have in mind this:

Through the communicative external means, we can at most lead another soul to the threshold of the inner chamber (such as by MoT). But from thence, the soul begins to learn its uniquely personal language in which the Logos expresses itself. The hope is that someday, we'll grow beyond the inner Tower of Babel, and will meet each other in the future, at even greater depth, in a purely spiritual communion. In the meantime, the ideal of this future meeting in the Logos can only be maintained by a specifically tailored social structure. Without it, chaos will quickly issue, because souls can drift away, and because by definition they cannot share anything about their inner trajectories, there's no way to synchronize them either. Thus, a higher authority is needed, which is trusted to cohere the general direction in which the souls are following their personal inspirations. It's like saying: "I cannot share my innermost experiences with you, but we can participate together in the common rituals. Hopefully, this would ensure a common direction of our innermost lives."

More generally, I would like to ask you: what is the source(s) of your views on Tomberg? Is it the fruit of your personal study and research only, or is it through or in collaboration with the views of other thinkers or biographers as well? Please don't take offense. I am asking not out of mere curiosity, but because I am trying to understand how you relate to the question of the 'double game' - the idea that a double path of development is necessary. This seems fondamental to me. As Cleric said, the idea of facilitating an easier path for followers of Peter, induces a peculiar inner stance in the soul of the 'knower' who intends to bring about such plan, through the "Catholic project". To me this stance appears, to say the least, unsustainable for the soul, and incompatible with not only spiritual science, but any genuine spiritual path. But I have not seen this side of the question (the first person perspective of the advocate of the Catholic project) considered in your posts so far, if I'm not mistaken. So I am trying to understand how this plan can feel from your perspective, and how these notions arise that you progressively bring to our consideration. If it's not too personal a question, of course.

[Cleric]

Is the above a decent approximation of what you were describing (of course, leaving out many details of how supersensible research actually unfolds, although it may be helpful to explore that more as well, if possible)? 

Yes, in the general sense, this is what I tried to suggest. Of course, there could be many, many variabilities and subtleties, which make things not so obvious and straightforward.

So we are saying an initiate like Steiner was able to work out his detailed spiritual science because he could not only attune to the Intuitive perspectives of Beings who think the grand evolutionary rhythms (which perhaps quite a few others like VT did as well), but could also remain concentrated along the entire gradient from such Beings to the ordinary human sensory perspective. Thus, he could trace how various Beings along the hierarchical gradient contribute their shaping to the general evolutionary intents, which then naturally provides insight into how precisely the familiar imaginative perspective and its lawful metamorphosis takes shape, as if witnessing the spiritual Cosmos from the terminal circumference of this symphonic sphere of scale-relative interfering activity. In other words, it becomes easier and easier to trace how the structured Intuitive potential is filtered through the superimposed perspectives of Beings within the spiritual and soul worlds until it manifests as the sequential frames of ordinary sensory experience. 

I know that I repeat this over and over again, but I think it is really important. We may imagine that the higher the initiate, the more obvious everything becomes. It almost feels as if the initiate’s job is to simply look at the rolling list of instructions and execute accordingly. But I think this is misleading. Every decision, every insight and will impulse must be thought of as won in a battle, with much effort (we can see this even in Christ’s story). Not only that, but things are not always so black and white. We may expect that if we are morally perfect, then for every question, since we’re unbiased, we’ll simply perceive the good direction and choose it. But sometimes it’s not that clear. For example, we know that Steiner was reluctant to found the Anthroposophic Society. He would much rather prefer if things could exist among free individualities. Yet, in the end, he made the decision. This in itself means that a certain union with Ahri was made – because wherever there are human-made hierarchical relations, there’s also the Ahri element. This doesn’t mean that Steiner made a pact with the devil, it’s simply that in the Earthly realm, L and A are intermingled in everything, including our bodies and souls. Thus, we can imagine how much inner struggle is required to make these decisions, to balance within the interference of intuitive forces. And in general, the more specific the tasks become, the more complicated the relations. There’s always sacrifice involved, there’s always someone who will be offended, and so on.

Nevertheless, there are things that do depend on the level of development and freedom. For example, for me it seems obvious that Steiner speaks from a clear panoramic insight when he says that religion and its institutions are something that should remain in the past as we step into the epoch of the spiritual soul (just like in the earlier BD quote). Now, VT and Rodriel may disagree. As I tried to enumerate, one possibility is softer and says, “Yes, Steiner saw absolutely right, but everything changed a few decades later, and the gods decided that religion would be needed for quite more time.” The other possibility is to simply doubt that Steiner had such a great vision after all, and he acted out his own hidden biases. To put it bluntly, he simply disliked religion and thus was willing to focus only on worldlines that exclude them. How do we know what the truth is then? Well, the only thing we can do is to keep expanding our horizons and seek the harmony of the facts on all levels. I think (hope) we’re doing that in this discussion. Even if it seems that I’m demeaning VT, it nevertheless allows us to stretch our intuitive feelers, to explore such worldlines and follow where they ring in resonance and where they clash with other facts.

"Christian Hermeticism therefore has no pretension to rival either religion or official science. He who is searching here for the “true religion”, the “true philosophy”, or the “true science” is looking in the wrong direction. Christian Hermeticists are not masters, but servants. They do not have the pretension (that is, in any case, somewhat puerile) of elevating themselves above the holy faith of the faithful, or above the fruits of the admirable efforts of workers in science, or above the creations of artistic genius. Hermeticists are not guarding the secret of future discoveries in the sciences. They do not know, for example, just as everyone at present is ignorant of it, the effective remedy against cancer. Moreover, they would be monsters if they were to guard the secret of the remedy against this bane of humanity without communicating it. No, they do not know it, and they will be the first to recognise the superiority of the future benefactor of the human race, that savant who will discover this remedy."

Hm, this is also interesting to contemplate, and it hints that the Hermetic perspective is indeed seen as positioned in the soul; it is the guardian of the communal soul. Yet, the higher trajectory is left to religion and not meddled with. But if the Hermetic initiates are not the ones to give direction of religion, then who is? Or is religion bound to rest entirely on tradition until the second coming?

[AshvinP]

Nevertheless, there are things that do depend on the level of development and freedom. For example, for me it seems obvious that Steiner speaks from a clear panoramic insight when he says that religion and its institutions are something that should remain in the past as we step into the epoch of the spiritual soul (just like in the earlier BD quote). Now, VT and Rodriel may disagree. As I tried to enumerate, one possibility is softer and says, “Yes, Steiner saw absolutely right, but everything changed a few decades later, and the gods decided that religion would be needed for quite more time.” The other possibility is to simply doubt that Steiner had such a great vision after all, and he acted out his own hidden biases. To put it bluntly, he simply disliked religion and thus was willing to focus only on worldlines that exclude them. How do we know what the truth is then? Well, the only thing we can do is to keep expanding our horizons and seek the harmony of the facts on all levels. I think (hope) we’re doing that in this discussion. Even if it seems that I’m demeaning VT, it nevertheless allows us to stretch our intuitive feelers, to explore such worldlines and follow where they ring in resonance and where they clash with other facts.

I am curious, how would you see the Christian Community in this context of 'religion and its institutions'? As we know, Steiner was not directly involved in creating this, but he certainly lent it his inner support and felt that it would be a useful structure to support others in developing the consciousness soul. How do we distinguish such an endeavor from placing a certain degree of hope in the more widespread Church institutions we are familiar with? Here is an interesting quote in that respect:

"Is it not necessary for the vast majority of people to have a celebration in which they come to this experience in their own way, to be led to the reality that is there in Christ?

From here the relationship between the anthroposophical movement and the Christian community becomes clear. If a cultus had been given for the Anthroposophical Society, it could be based to a much greater extent on the details of the new world-view which is emerging in Anthroposophy. But this new world-view must first fight its way through, in all fields, and still has difficult conflicts to pass through. Humanity as a whole cannot wait for this. There are also many people who have no direct interest in this struggle for a new world-view. For all of them there can be a cultus which, although it is in full agreement with the spiritual knowledge that exists in Anthroposophy and is possible from it alone, does not teach or presuppose this spiritual knowledge, but gives people directly what connects them with the highest reality.

What the Christian community has to impart to people is the highest. It is the living Christ in all reality and vitality. There is nothing higher. But it is this highest in a certain age and for a certain human need.

If the Christian Community were composed only of anthroposophists, Steiner would have considered the task of the Christian Community to be mistaken. The Anthroposophical Society has its own great tasks as a cultural movement, which is above all necessary today in the intellectualistic-materialistic present and has to struggle hard enough to assert itself. That is why it could not support such a new community at all, also financially. But apart from this, Steiner also wished to educate a kind of human being that will gradually multiply in the future. It seeks communion in the spirit and can in its own way, through what Rudolf Steiner has given it, come to the same Most High that the Christian Community brings in its own way. For the goal of the anthroposophical movement is also full communion with Christ into body and blood. It can be experienced, even if it remains unconscious, just as much in meditation as in worship. "(Lit.: Rittelmeyer)

Hm, this is also interesting to contemplate, and it hints that the Hermetic perspective is indeed seen as positioned in the soul; it is the guardian of the communal soul. Yet, the higher trajectory is left to religion and not meddled with. But if the Hermetic initiates are not the ones to give direction of religion, then who is? Or is religion bound to rest entirely on tradition until the second coming?

I suppose it helps to add more of the passage here.

"Likewise they recognise without reserve the superiority of a Francis of Assisi — and of many others —who was a man of the so-called "exoteric" faith. They know also that each sincere believer is potentially a Francis of Assisi. Men and women of faith, of science and of art are their superiors in many essential points. Hermeticists know it well and do not flatter themselves to be better, to believe better, to know better or to be more competent. They do not secretly guard a religion, which to them is appropriate, to replace the existing religions, or a science to replace the current sciences, or arts to replace the fine arts of today or yesterday. That which they possess does not comprise any tangible advantage or objective superiority with regard to religion, science and art; what they possess is only the communal soul of religion, science and art. What is this mission of conserving the communal soul of religion, science and art? I am going to reply with a concrete example, as follows:

You know without doubt, dear Unknown Friend, that many —and several of them are writers —in France, Germany, England, and elsewhere, promulgate the doctrine of the so-called "two churches": the church of Peter and the church of John, or of "two epochs"—the epoch of Peter and the epoch of John. You know also that this doctrine teaches the end —more or less at hand —of the church of Peter, or above all of the papacy which is its visible symbol, and that the spirit of John the disciple loved by the Master, he who leaned on his breast and heard the beating of his heart, will replace it. In this way it teaches that the "exoteric" church of Peter will make way for the "esoteric" church of John, which will be that of perfect freedom.

Now, John, who submitted himself voluntarily to Peter as leader or prince of the apostles, did not become his successor after his death, although he outlived Peter by many years. The beloved disciple who listened to the beating of the Master's heart was, is, and always will be the representative and guardian of this heart —and as such he was not, is not, and never will be the leader or head of the Church. Because just as the heart is not called upon to replace the head, so is John not called upon to succeed Peter. The heart certainly guards the life of the body and the soul, but it is the head which makes decisions, directs, and chooses the means for the accomplishment of the tasks of the entire organism — head, heart and limbs. The mission of John is to keep the life and soul of the Church alive until the Second Coming of the Lord. This is why John has never claimed and never will claim the office of directing the body of the Church. He vivifies this body, but he does not direct its actions.

Now Hermeticism, the living Hermetic tradition, guards the communal soul of all true culture. I must add: Hermeticists listen to — and now and then hear — the beating of the heart of the spiritual life of humanity. They cannot do otherwise than live as guardians of the life and communal soul of religion, science and art. They do not have any privilege in any of these domains; saints, true scientists, and artists of genius are their superiors. But they live for the mystery of the communal heart which beats within all religions, all philosophies, all arts and all sciences —past, present and future. And inspired by the example of John, the beloved disciple, they do not pretend, and never will pretend, to play a directing role in religion, science, art, in social or political life; but they are constantly attentive so as not to miss any occasion to serve religion, philosophy, science, art, the social and political life of humanity, and to this to infuse the breath of life of their communal soul — analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."

[Federica]

Statements like "spiritual science never existed" and the like are simply not meant to be read as statements of fact. Every such statement points directly back to the center of all Tomberg's activities: the Lazarus-John mystery. The above statement is to be read: "When Lazarus was raised as the unnamed beloved disciple, it was as if he never existed. Like Lazarus, Rudolf Steiner and his impulse have radiated their life forces out into the word such that the outer form could no longer be held together. These concentrated life forces were a source of death for their inaugurator who willingly took this death upon himself in order that it would become a spring of life for the future. Now come, let us enter this mill of death and make it our own! And may it be to the glory of the Lord!" Did Martin take Tomberg's personal comments this way? That's hard to tell from his book, to be honest. Anyway, you seem to be more or less on board with this. Just figured I'd elaborate this crucial point once more in hopes that it will land with others here.

I see. If we then consider the interpretation of the mill of death that you propose, I guess we must now read differently Tomberg's statement about having shed mid-life his old self, and wishing another name for his new self. We have to see it no longer as a sign of clear rupture with Anthroposophy, but as the symbol of a resurrection. Then, what is the relation between VT - the risen Steiner - anonymous author of MoT - the resurrection of Anthroposophy - on the one hand, and Steiner's continued work from beyond the threshold and from his future reincarnations, on the other?

Are these now dissolved in the new embodiment of Steiner/Spiritual Science in the Lazarus-John stream brought about by Tomberg and materialized in the Catholic project, or has a sort of splitting of individuality taken place? Has this resurrection put a stop to future incarnations of the individuality of Rudolf Steiner, or how are these going to proceed? And what about the view that Steiner is a member of the White Lodge? Also, what about the view that Steiner's premature death is the achievement of adversarial forces having worked all throughout his life, from the erroneous registration of his name and date of birth, all the way to the failed attack in Munich, poisoning, burning of the Gotheanum, illness, and departure?

Rudolf Steiner and his gift of Anthroposophy was thus a kind of Lazarus - a public spectacle which had to die to itself and be raised anonymously, i.e. in the private confines of personal certainty - through "anonymous friends" (Johns) who let Peter go first into the tomb. Meditations on the Tarot is Anthroposophy in its resurrected form.

[Cleric]

I am curious, how would you see the Christian Community in this context of 'religion and its institutions'? As we know, Steiner was not directly involved in creating this, but he certainly lent it his inner support and felt that it would be a useful structure to support others in developing the consciousness soul. How do we distinguish such an endeavor from placing a certain degree of hope in the more widespread Church institutions we are familiar with? Here is an interesting quote in that respect:

I think that the fact that it is called "Community" already tells a lot. I haven't delved into the details because it hasn't been particularly interesting to me, but as far as I know, it has always been implied to encourage individual development and free thinking, while still providing a certain ceremonial and ritual setting. There's no doubt that there are souls who still cannot give a stable form to their "I"-being through their own forces, thus an external rhythmic scaffold can be necessary to give shape to the soul stream, so to speak. Yet, there's this 'open roof' sense, in which one can feel that they can move further if their forces allow for it. For example, I think that reincarnation is not part of the doctrine, but the priests go through training in SS, thus, since the CC is not dogma-based but encourages free thinking and development, if someone asks about reincarnation, they won't be dismissed. Maybe they'll be given directions to continue their studies with SS. So in this sense, the CC can be called much more a kind of transition ground, where the sacraments can be exercised, but there's no ceiling preventing anyone from going further if they feel called upon. This is obviously different in the traditional Church. That's why it isn't clear to me how the Catholic project is conceived. What is the plan? If I go to the priest and ask about reincarnation, he probably won't say that it is a private concern, but rather he'll simply state that the dogma rejects it, and if I'm to believe in it, I won't be exactly catholic anymore. As such, there's a clear ceiling here, a boundary. Like Federica above, I'm also interested in what 'the plan' really is. It would be rather strange if on one side it needs to be rejected (if the dogma is to remain intact), while on the other side the priest whispers in the ear, "...but you know, even though we have to explicitly reject it before the masses, in your secret chamber you can consider it."

I suppose it helps to add more of the passage here.

"Likewise they recognise without reserve the superiority of a Francis of Assisi — and of many others —who was a man of the so-called "exoteric" faith. They know also that each sincere believer is potentially a Francis of Assisi. Men and women of faith, of science and of art are their superiors in many essential points. Hermeticists know it well and do not flatter themselves to be better, to believe better, to know better or to be more competent. They do not secretly guard a religion, which to them is appropriate, to replace the existing religions, or a science to replace the current sciences, or arts to replace the fine arts of today or yesterday. That which they possess does not comprise any tangible advantage or objective superiority with regard to religion, science and art; what they possess is only the communal soul of religion, science and art. What is this mission of conserving the communal soul of religion, science and art? I am going to reply with a concrete example, as follows:

You know without doubt, dear Unknown Friend, that many —and several of them are writers —in France, Germany, England, and elsewhere, promulgate the doctrine of the so-called "two churches": the church of Peter and the church of John, or of "two epochs"—the epoch of Peter and the epoch of John. You know also that this doctrine teaches the end —more or less at hand —of the church of Peter, or above all of the papacy which is its visible symbol, and that the spirit of John the disciple loved by the Master, he who leaned on his breast and heard the beating of his heart, will replace it. In this way it teaches that the "exoteric" church of Peter will make way for the "esoteric" church of John, which will be that of perfect freedom.

Now, John, who submitted himself voluntarily to Peter as leader or prince of the apostles, did not become his successor after his death, although he outlived Peter by many years. The beloved disciple who listened to the beating of the Master's heart was, is, and always will be the representative and guardian of this heart —and as such he was not, is not, and never will be the leader or head of the Church. Because just as the heart is not called upon to replace the head, so is John not called upon to succeed Peter. The heart certainly guards the life of the body and the soul, but it is the head which makes decisions, directs, and chooses the means for the accomplishment of the tasks of the entire organism — head, heart and limbs. The mission of John is to keep the life and soul of the Church alive until the Second Coming of the Lord. This is why John has never claimed and never will claim the office of directing the body of the Church. He vivifies this body, but he does not direct its actions.

Now Hermeticism, the living Hermetic tradition, guards the communal soul of all true culture. I must add: Hermeticists listen to — and now and then hear — the beating of the heart of the spiritual life of humanity. They cannot do otherwise than live as guardians of the life and communal soul of religion, science and art. They do not have any privilege in any of these domains; saints, true scientists, and artists of genius are their superiors. But they live for the mystery of the communal heart which beats within all religions, all philosophies, all arts and all sciences —past, present and future. And inspired by the example of John, the beloved disciple, they do not pretend, and never will pretend, to play a directing role in religion, science, art, in social or political life; but they are constantly attentive so as not to miss any occasion to serve religion, philosophy, science, art, the social and political life of humanity, and to this to infuse the breath of life of their communal soul — analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."

Thanks, I'll have to meditate more on these questions. But to be honest, I'm really confused by what 'the plan' really is.

[AshvinP]

I think that the fact that it is called "Community" already tells a lot. I haven't delved into the details because it hasn't been particularly interesting to me, but as far as I know, it has always been implied to encourage individual development and free thinking, while still providing a certain ceremonial and ritual setting. There's no doubt that there are souls who still cannot give a stable form to their "I"-being through their own forces, thus an external rhythmic scaffold can be necessary to give shape to the soul stream, so to speak. Yet, there's this 'open roof' sense, in which one can feel that they can move further if their forces allow for it. For example, I think that reincarnation is not part of the doctrine, but the priests go through training in SS, thus, since the CC is not dogma-based but encourages free thinking and development, if someone asks about reincarnation, they won't be dismissed. Maybe they'll be given directions to continue their studies with SS. So in this sense, the CC can be called much more a kind of transition ground, where the sacraments can be exercised, but there's no ceiling preventing anyone from going further if they feel called upon. This is obviously different in the traditional Church. That's why it isn't clear to me how the Catholic project is conceived. What is the plan? If I go to the priest and ask about reincarnation, he probably won't say that it is a private concern, but rather he'll simply state that the dogma rejects it, and if I'm to believe in it, I won't be exactly catholic anymore. As such, there's a clear ceiling here, a boundary. Like Federica above, I'm also interested in what 'the plan' really is. It would be rather strange if on one side it needs to be rejected (if the dogma is to remain intact), while on the other side the priest whispers in the ear, "...but you know, even though we have to explicitly reject it before the masses, in your secret chamber you can consider it."

Right, so it seems to me that, as a practical matter, the spiritual life for many souls will always be mediated through an organization of some form, even including the Anthroposophical Society. For those souls who are not partaking in deep supersensible research, the Society will act much in the same way as an academic or religious organization, giving a firm support structure within a community of like-minded souls. Even for those of us who avoid joining/converting/affiliating with any such organization, for our supersensible knowledge to be planted as a seed in the broader cultural landscape, we will need to utilize the existing institutions to do so, whether in the domain of science, art, or religion. It seems that this is implicit in the very nature of the Anthroposophical-Michaelic impulse as well. For example, why is there no Waldorf University or Waldorf graduate school? After the young soul and mind have been appropriately shaped in keeping with supersensible insight into the developmental stages, the soul must go out and insinuate itself into the wider World of existing institutions, and hopefully begin contributing to their spiritualization in some way. As a practical matter, a double life will be led for some time, just by the fact that we won't be 'casting pearls before swine' at every opportunity. Some aspects of inner experience we will keep quite close to the chest.

So in that sense, I don't think 'the plan', from the perspective of VT and Christian Hermeticism at least, is anything super complicated. It's simply trying to sow the seeds of higher spiritual life within the existing institutions of culture, taking opportunities to spiritualize the latter whenever they present themselves, in a strategic and somewhat cautious way. Of course, this should lead to ever-expanding results that become more noticeable in the functioning of such institutions over time. The question for me is how much the existing Church institution can transform in the direction of something more like the Christian Community. It would still maintain a definite structure based on tradition with its concrete rituals, sacraments, and dogma. But can we also imagine gradual leeway entering into this structure such that it becomes more open-roof and souls within it feel like they are free to develop their inner forces further, and that they can openly think and speak about the inner realities, without the threat of excommunication or damnation hanging over them? I suppose Rodriel has been trying to draw our attention to slivers of leeway that are opening up here and there, for example, in the recent post where he pointed out the RCC won't expel souls for their beliefs in reincarnation.

The main thing for me is that, regardless of whether the RCC's pliability in this respect is being overestimated, we don't need to see VT's pursuit as something completely at odds with Anthroposophy and the inner work that always needs the mediation of outer institutions to become more widespread and effective in the face of unfolding events. It feels quite arbitrary to decide that it can only be one or the other. We could contemplate the example of Bernhard Martin, who converted to Catholicism after the war but also remained directly connected to Anthroposophy. (I just ordered his book, which looks interesting). It will be interesting to hear if and to what extent he needed to live a double life in that scenario, or to what extent he was able to merge them into a single transparent life mission with the renewed Christ ideal at the center.

[Federica]

So in that sense, I don't think 'the plan', from the perspective of VT and Christian Hermeticism at least, is anything super complicated. It's simply trying to sow the seeds of higher spiritual life within the existing institutions of culture, taking opportunities to spiritualize the latter whenever they present themselves, in a strategic and somewhat cautious way. Of course, this should lead to ever-expanding results that become more noticeable in the functioning of such institutions over time.
...
The main thing for me is that, regardless of whether the RCC's pliability in this respect is being overestimated, we don't need to see VT's pursuit as something completely at odds with Anthroposophy and the inner work that always needs the mediation of outer institutions to become more widespread and effective in the face of unfolding events.

Doesn't this risk constituting a projection onto Tomberg's hermeticism of your own desires and views, also given that the other day, when I asked you what you thought the Catholic project from Tomberg's perspective is, you answered: “That still remains mostly a mystery to me"? It is noteworthy that such a scenario for VT's plan happens to deeply accommodate a perspective that coincides with your long-term background, long-term preferences, long-term views on cultural institutions and the rule of law. Perhaps you are now drawing these considerations from your unbiased soul, but isn't it still a strange coincidence that your unbiased self now suddenly finds out (hours after calling it a mystery) that just that one scenario is, of course, the most likely?

I suppose Rodriel has been trying to draw our attention to slivers of leeway that are opening up here and there, for example, in the recent post where he pointed out the RCC won't expel souls for their beliefs in reincarnation.

Guys… They don't expel the !pedophiles! in their ranks. Why would they expel people …for their beliefs in reincarnation??

The question for me is how much the existing Church institution can transform in the direction of something more like the Christian Community.

How not to see this idea other than as plainly naive? You are overlooking the intrinsically political structure of the RCC. Yet, only a few weeks ago, under more neutral overall soul conditions, you were in a very different mood - in what I would call the right mood, in line with Steiner’s expressed vision of community and circle for the future. Whilst now, it seems to me, you are overpowered by the strong pull of the RCC-beings.

I'd like to imagine that in the near future, the digital space will be utilized more and more as a projection of the 'congregation' of spirit-seeking souls that is taking shape in the supersensible domain, as we try to do here. What we work out through our independent yet shared intuitive process can be continued in the Earthly domain through this space, with the help of the most varied illustrations, metaphors, examples, and lines of reasoning, and hopefully this Impulse will radiate out to other cultural spaces as well. Yet we can't expect such hopes to actualize unless we faithfully invest in the small, humble, and seemingly trivial steps, where a few souls hash out and refine their intuitions for these inner dynamics and mutually support each other in triangulating such intuitions.

Do you still like to imagine that?