Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

I don't see any either/or in the bold way. What he implored specifically was not to found an organization that becomes the sole framework that formats the soul's esoteric striving. The idea of remaining completely isolated and silent, on the other hand, simply does not harmonize with his other comments and, more importantly, his activities. Just as little as I think he would fall into the elementary mistake of imagining we can skip directly from the intellectual soul to the spirit self, do I think he would fall into the mistake of such a performative contradiction between what he is doing and what he is saying. If we take it as part of our spiritual task to emulate the deeds of VT to some extent, then clearly we will be sharing our supersensible insights with others through various media such as books, articles, online forums, etc. He surely advises souls to be cautious with their sharing of supersensible perceptions or ideas and to let those perceptions and ideas mature in the soul before they are communicated, which is also advice we find from Steiner (again, this forum is a great example of such a cautious approach, where our explorations revolve around the core inner foundations). And it is surely advice that the current Anthroposophical Society, especially as it manifests on online platforms and certain publications, with endless speculation about Ahriman's incarnation, the 8th sphere, the previous and future incarnations of various individualities, ego-less human beings, etc., could take more to heart.

Ashvin,
Tomberg says that "tradition lives not thanks to organisations", and that "organizations" - organizations in general, not only newly founded ones! ................................ - "are embalmers and mummifiers". If you refuse to read it, I am afraid there's nothing I can do for you. You will have to remain in your contorted attempts to unread what is there.

What do you understand "tradition" to mean in this context, Federica, and do you disagree that it does not live thanks to organizations?

[Cleric]

Yes, but it feels like something is still being missed here. You are describing the poles of our current age, along which the modern soul is stretched, so to speak. That implies that there must exist a gradient between these poles. The new doesn't come in as if we have ascended to the next floor of a building and left the old on the previous, but rather, more of the whole building starts to grow around the current floor. This is a persistent theme of the Gospels as well, that the old and the new are coming into dynamic tension, and the former should seek loving and creative ways of accommodating the latter.

At this stage of evolution, it almost becomes irrelevant to sharply distinguish religious organizations from other organizations. That is why I was focusing on the functions of such organizations, from the perspective of the seeking soul. The fact is that many organizations serve as mediators, guardians, etc., of revealed knowledge of the past for such souls. In a short time, we can also speak of the Society as guarding revealed knowledge of the past, on which souls are dependent for their inner orientation. Yes, it will speak to these souls of the future epochs and their developments, but that will sound almost as nebulous as the 'second coming', the 'millennial kingdom', the 'final judgment', and so on, for those souls who fail to develop direct 'lines of communication' with the spiritual worlds. These non-religious organizations that we feel have moved on from all the shortcomings of the religious ones, will soon be in a similar position to the Churches and therefore in need of spiritual enlivenment if they aren't to rigidify and degenerate completely.

For sure, as long as any institution actively denies the here and now possibilities of the new man, it can't serve as a proper support, let alone the exclusive carrier, of the new Impulse. The Churches have a long way to go in that respect. Yet they aren't going to simply disappear from the face of the Earth any time soon. They will remain central hubs that attract religiously-inclined souls for much of the new age. What good does it serve to ignore this fact or to ignore the opportunities for transforming such hubs from the inside-out? Yes, it often seems difficult to imagine how this will happen. But at the same time, I am often surprised by what I read in the daily news. Things are not unfolding in any strictly linear or predictable way. If we axiomatically rule out all such possibilities from the beginning, then we simply make it more difficult for such institutions to be leveraged in the service of the new man.

(what you say about BD and the Orthodox Church also fits in well with Rodriel's observation/distinction between the latter and the RCC)

I want to remind of something, which all of us know, but it’s worth reiterating.

A new life begins, the body grows largely in accord with the impulses that the soul brings and the etheric life it attracts around itself. Every new form appears as a meeting point between the accumulated wisdom of the past and the new possibilities that the spirit seeks. The person matures, new experiences impress, then dies, and an empty husk is left behind. Quite the same principle holds also when we speak of organizations, religions, countries, empires, and so on. We speak of ‘Founding Fathers’, ‘Church Fathers’, etc. With powerful individualities, a new life is breathed into the Earthly matrix, which grows around them. Yet, here we can also observe maturation and then decline. Why? For the same reason this happens to the body. At a certain stage, the form can no longer serve the evolving subtle aspects. It becomes a rigid hindrance. Yet, just like hermit crabs, the old husks can be reutilized by those beings adapted to them.

This is something we should be very conscious about. We should clearly distinguish the inner life and the forms. A Church is a form. It grows through fresh forces, enlivened by inspired souls, then it passes its zenith, and then declines. Why? Because most of the souls already need new forms if they are to develop the evolving degrees of freedom. What about the souls who still need such an environment? Let’s say that a soul is at the level of development that was appropriate for the 14th century. One can say, “So the Church today is right for this soul, because its tenets are not spectacularly different from then.” To an extent, this is so, but it’s also true that the Church today, even if it has preserved its rules and rituals exactly as they were centuries ago, can never be the same. The whole context is different today. Most importantly, the clergy is not the same. There are fewer and fewer truly inspired souls there. The husk has been passed from generation to generation, and today, in our modern world, it has become mostly a way to make a living. Like some make a career in the navy, in sales, and so on, so one can build a career in a religious institution and make a living. I’m not saying that there are no truly faithful and devoted souls, but it’s simply the nature of the times that the old faith can no longer be such a powerful force. We know that for the early Christians, the tenet ‘believe!’ was not a mere intellectual switch. When the soul made that inner conversion, it felt as if a psychedelic rush had been unleashed. It was a true Red Pill. Something really transformed in the soul experience, thus the faith was not in the least a blind belief, as today’s intellectuals imagine. However, just like with psychedelics, repeated experiences seem to diminish the original rush. In the next incarnation, the soul says, “Strange, I took the same dose of faith, but it didn’t get me high. Seems I’ve developed tolerance.” (I hope that these metaphors are taken in the right way!) In fact, the soul is high, however, the experience has been so trivialized that it now feels baseline. So, for such reasons, even the most fervent faith in our days, cannot get one ‘high enough’. The soul yearns for something more, something more real, more intense – true spiritual life.

So I repeat: we need to distinguish the vibrant spiritual life from the husks it leaves behind. We need a kind of ‘radar’ to always seek this inner life where it is active in a certain epoch. When we speak of helping others, we should be clear that we can only help the individual souls. The Church, the husk, cannot be helped. It exists as it is, simply because there are beings that need it as it is. It’s like saying to a hermit crab, “Let’s change your shell with a new fancy one”. The crab replies, “But I don’t want another shell. This fits me quite snuggly.” This is why, even at the beginning, I said that even if a new form is to grow out of the RCC, it would bud out as something new, while the bulk will remain and will keep the brand name.

This is important to understand. Otherwise, we’ll face many disappointments and eventually waste a lot of energy in a direction that has been a lost cause right from the start.

Of course, understanding these principles should in no way make us prejudiced! Every soul deserves individual attention. It would be a great fallacy if we mechanically categorize a person because of the environment he presently occupies. The inverse is also true. Just because someone is found in an organization that seeks the new life, it doesn’t mean that the soul itself shares the ideal. As long as it finds some kind of nourishment there, it will be attracted, and might cause a lot ot headaches too.

So this is another aspect that I find concerning in the Catholic project. It seems that a lot of emphasis is placed on preserving the husk, and even bringing it back to life – the life it once had in the middle ages (when it was a political power). If true spirituality has taught us one thing, it should be – seek the ever-fresh Spring of the Spirit, not the husks it has left behind (BD says: You are not here to pick your forefathers' bones). The Church doesn’t need saving. The souls do. What is needed is for the souls to always be led toward the clean and fresh waters. Wherever there’s water, settlements appear, crops grow, trade flourishes, culture prospers. So we shouldn’t be so concerned about the old forms. If there’s life, there will be a form. But if we have a husk that has been emptied of vibrant life long ago, no matter how much we try to patch it, polish it, and strive to adapt it to the new times, it will remain only fit for hermit crabs.

It can be objected: “But is it not possible for a form to become immortal and metamorphose from glory into glory?” It is possible, when its substance becomes as pliable as Light and can reflect every movement of the Spirit. Here, everyone can seek the answer for themselves. Is the Church-form made of material that can be metamorphosed in such a seamless way? Or is it too rigid to be refurbished, and the spirit needs to grow a new body for itself?

[Cleric]

PS: I hope it has become clear that what I said doesn't negate the need for a body - organization, community, etc. - in the exact same way we cannot live on Earth without a body. The important thing is that the body is up to the tasks of the spirit. And additionally, to discern when a given body still has potential and can serve its function, or it has run its course.

Also, on the topic that old husks are needed for those who are at the appropriate level, here's another metaphor. In the Bronze Age, the simple soul would dig bronze ore, in the Iron Age - iron ore. In the Golden Age, it will dig gold. Thus, even though the level of conscious development might be corresponding to a past age, the whole environment is different, and also the simple education that the soul needs should be correspondingly adapted.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

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."

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

Your hypothetical scenario of asking the priest about reincarnation is, I think, quite illustrative of the function of the Church. If you ask the priest this question, he will most definitely "correct" you. If he is a good priest, however, he won't tell you that you "aren't exactly Catholic anymore" for believing it. He will strongly reinforce the traditional teaching of the Church and then tell you to search your conscience and ask for God's discernment. He might additionally recommend that you consult the Catechism if you are in need of extremely precise intellectual guidance. You will then find this statement in the Catechism: "One must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience; to deliberately act against it would be to condemn oneself" (CCC 1790). Now, if one's conscience tells him that reincarnation is a fact, this could either mean that one has received a special revelation or that one has been spiritually deceived. This forked potentiality then renders the personal "belief" one of the utmost moral weight, over which one should pray continuously, and which must be subjected to the dogma of the Church in terms of its communication (meaning that it must be kept silent).

One is now at the point of asking precisely what it means to "keep silent." Are the Gospels themselves silent about reincarnation? Yes and no. For those who have gained the ability to see it, they speak constantly about reincarnation but do so without ever explicitly stating it. In this sense, we need look no further than the words read from beside the altar every Sunday. Of course the problem is that people don't see this, and this is precisely why spiritual science was given to humanity. Valentin Tomberg has through his work demonstrated a way to use the pre-existing language to point toward spiritual science without saying the things it explicitly teaches. In doing so he points to the fact that the Consciousness Soul is the narrow opening you have repeatedly mentioned which is inexorably the domain of personal certainty. This is, by the way, the explanation behind Tomberg's baffling statement about building a direct bridge from the Intellectual Soul to the Spirit Self. The Consciousness Soul is the passing-through of a narrow opening at the level of the collectivity of individuals. For this reason, the transition is invisible, or silent. It cannot be seen unless one passes through it oneself. Passing through the opening oneself, done en masse, is the silent unfolding of the Consciousness Soul in the human social organism. (This is much, much different from the way the Intellectual Soul unfolds, itself being an organ of natural understanding and therefore necessarily subject to publicly verifiable standards of objectivity).

"Yes, but we know that spiritual science is meant to be carried out in public. Passing through the narrow opening depends on its open, public dissemination." Correct - it was carried out in public and remains a public spectacle, just as the death and raising of Lazarus was done in public. (After this, the beloved disciple receded into the background.) But in public - under the scrutiny of the naturally perceivable standards of objectivity - was where it was destined to die.

Like I have said several times, the work of Rudolf Steiner remains publicly available and is easier to access than ever before thanks to the internet. While VT's works themselves can nudge people in the direction of spiritual science, as you and others here have rightly pointed out, they don't go all the way. But VT seems to have carefully cultivated the fruits of the second half of his entire life such that people who felt the call of his work would see in it the treasures he buried there and that those not coming to it with an anthroposophical background would look into Steiner's work themselves. All the while, those who never take the initiative to do so are brought closer to personal certainty by the influence of those who have achieved it.

[Cleric]

Like I have said several times, the work of Rudolf Steiner remains publicly available and is easier to access than ever before thanks to the internet. While VT's works themselves can nudge people in the direction of spiritual science, as you and others here have rightly pointed out, they don't go all the way. But VT seems to have carefully cultivated the fruits of the second half of his entire life such that people who felt the call of his work would see in it the treasures he buried there and that those not coming to it with an anthroposophical background would look into Steiner's work themselves. All the while, those who never take the initiative to do so are brought closer to personal certainty by the influence of those who have achieved it.

Yes, Rodriel, but everything you've written still concerns 'saving the sheep'. This is the part of the 'plan' that I have no problem comprehending.

So there's a farm. The workers operate with well-established cultivation methods, refined over centuries. There's a well-thought-out production pipeline. Then, we observe the apples on the tree, and just when they become ripe, we sneak in and pick them, we save them from the hands of the farmer.

That's OK... somewhat. But how do we expect this to work back on the farmers in any positive way? Wouldn't they simply become outraged for diverting their crop? This is the part of the 'plan' that I find confusing. Of course, we may say, "Well, when the farmers see that the apples we take turn out better in our hands than in theirs, they'll become curious and want to adopt our methods." Yet, this is what I called 'wishful thinking'. Is this really the plan? Or there's something I'm missing?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Another crucially important lens Tomberg gives us to look through in order to comprehend the importance of Rome is international law. Ashvin mentioned somewhere in the thread recently how strange and unpredictable things have become on the stage of global politics. We must consider the fact that our modern Western form of government, with its major flowering in the European Enlightenment, is a direct result of the Christ Impulse. Modern law is founded on a deep-seated apprehension of the 'I', of the centrality of the human person. As our social structures begin to break down, it is left entirely up to human whim as to whether the I-based foundations of law are upheld. In fact the entire 20th century was a test of the this very fragility in light of the very real possibility of complete degeneracy. I would argue that today the Roman Catholic Church is the only institution guaranteed to uphold the law of the 'I' against the mounting counterforces of the time. This is actually its most important function. Moreover it is through this function that we come to understand what is and what is not a husk to be discarded in the forms of older times. It was through Israel that the Gospel was birthed from within the Law. The old ethnic husk fell away and what remained spiraled together with the globalizing apparatus of the Roman Empire. Rome's husk fell away as well, and what lives now in the Roman Catholic Church is the living continuation of Israel-Rome, which serves as the protector of all that is sensibly perceptible in the known world, from the minutiae of brute fact up to the most sublime conceptual heights of what is capable via the rational intellect. The Roman Catholic Church is the keeper of God's Law (as the entire domain of that which is publicly verifiable) and the defender of the central and most precious entity in this domain: the human person. The human person, as the seat of conscience, must be upheld at all costs, for it is only through this important but vulnerable pinhole of conscience that the Consciousness Soul will have a chance to unfold.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Like I have said several times, the work of Rudolf Steiner remains publicly available and is easier to access than ever before thanks to the internet. While VT's works themselves can nudge people in the direction of spiritual science, as you and others here have rightly pointed out, they don't go all the way. But VT seems to have carefully cultivated the fruits of the second half of his entire life such that people who felt the call of his work would see in it the treasures he buried there and that those not coming to it with an anthroposophical background would look into Steiner's work themselves. All the while, those who never take the initiative to do so are brought closer to personal certainty by the influence of those who have achieved it.

Yes, Rodriel, but everything you've written still concerns 'saving the sheep'. This is the part of the 'plan' that I have no problem comprehending.

So there's a farm. The workers operate with well-established cultivation methods, refined over centuries. There's a well-thought-out production pipeline. Then, we observe the apples on the tree, and just when they become ripe, we sneak in and pick them, we save them from the hands of the farmer.

That's OK... somewhat. But how do we expect this to work back on the farmers in any positive way? Wouldn't they simply become outraged for diverting their crop? This is the part of the 'plan' that I find confusing. Of course, we may say, "Well, when the farmers see that the apples we take turn out better in our hands than in theirs, they'll become curious and want to adopt our methods." Yet, this is what I called 'wishful thinking'. Is this really the plan? Or there's something I'm missing?

I can't say that I have any exact knowledge of what "the plan" is supposed to be. However, I imagine the entire operation as a quiet one. At no point do I expect priests to give homilies about reincarnation or old Saturn. At all stages of the process there will be souls in need of the exoteric guardrails. But at the end of the process, the esoteric layer will be collectively understood within the exoteric outer container. The exoteric language will be spoken, but the depth axis will be perceived. That's more of less how I envision it. Now, I certainly foresee there being major bumps along the way. The invisible order producing better fruit will illicit the ire of certain contingents within the old guard, and there will be clashes. St. Joan will be burned at the stake again, many times over, most likely.