Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Federica]

The conclusion of this thread for me is, it’s worrying how irrational, biased, and secretly wishing an evolved mind can become under the pull of certain forces. I knew that Ashvin had a strong sympathy for Church-as-institution, but seeing the bias spelled out so stubbornly, reply after reply, moreover with such an air of superiority, and Rodriel too, it's not a good omen for the future. All this energy spent in arbitrary indulgence and speculation. As it's been said, meanwhile the clock is ticking.

[AshvinP]

Yes, exactly, and we should note that "Church" could be replaced with "Anthroposophical Society" above, and the underlying point remains the same. It is a universal risk for organizations where a certain level of trust is needed in the words of authority figures, and where there is a possibility of stagnation with inner development and hostility toward higher revelations. That is what VT experienced in the Society of his time, as he was practically pushed out for expanding on Steiner's supersensible research. So he transitioned toward the Church, as another field of activity where the guidance of Sun-initiates is desperately needed, and where such initiates may actually discover more receptivity than most esotericists imagine is possible. Again, if the Meditations are seriously pursued within the sphere of the Church faithful (and it's hard to ignore Pope JPII having a copy on his desk, or a prominent Catholic theologian writing the introduction, as at least a preliminary indication of positive movement), then we are already speaking of a breeding den for gifted souls. Returning to Letter XX on The Judgement, it is fascinating how VT discusses the dynamics of our imaginative life as the means of drawing out the core principles for the 'Final Resurrection' (of which the passage that Federica shared only came at the end of this phenomenological reasoning). Anyone who deeply contemplates such imaginative experiences and the corresponding line of reasoning, will have already softened and expanded the rigid/flattened/remote/externalized perspective on the Second Coming.

Sure, anything is possible. Yet, it's worth noting that these things are seen through the 'best-possible-scenario glasses' When we read MoT, we should never forget that we do so from a rich spiritual-scientific background. We are prone to take joy in the way things intersect, how they can be seen as fitting with our understanding, but it could be quite different when someone else reads it. And by the way, that's why I don't share the same admiration for the subtle half-messaging approach. Truth is, people will fill the other half with what they are susceptible to and not what the author intended. And thus, when we see the book on the Pope's desk, we should also try to conceive what such a person has gathered from it. Rodriel's quote of von Balthazar is actually indicative: 'this is "a thinking, praying Christian of unmistakable purity" who has entered into different "varieties of occult science" as "secondary realities, which are only able to be truly known when they can be referred to in the absolute mystery of divine love manifest in Christ."' Can we say here that he was at all hinted that there's a path of higher cognition that can lead to the actual intuitive reality of the Logos? Or rather, he indeed sees all the occult sciences as secondary realities, which in the end only affirm the absolute mystery that the Church soul approaches asymptotically through faith? Has Balthazar actually learned something significantly new from this book, or he was simply happy that the various occult sciences were rendered as pointers to the Christ mystery that the Church has been teaching for centuries anyway? Same for Letter XX. Isn't it almost certain that these high Catholics, when filling their half of the story, saw there precisely an elaborated confirmation of the Church dogma of the Second Coming as a singular Event?

Ashvin, since you already have experience with the most varied online spiritual communities, maybe you should try (if you haven't already) join a few Catholic servers and test the ground That would be a good reality check for how well, in fact, the Church prepares its members for higher truths.

The optimistic glasses are all we have on the path of Sun initiation

Our essays here are a kind of subtle half-messaging approach, from my perspective. You did a much better job than I of avoiding any mention of Steiner or detailed esoteric science. You knew that souls who are presented with such content will immediately fill the other half with what they are susceptible to and use that as a basis of either rejecting it or absorbing it in a completely detrimental schematic manner. Yet even with that careful approach, things didn't turn out so successfully for the others who were on the forum. Even some of the people who were initially enthusiastic eventually fell away (like ParadoxZone, as an example). And in my experience, even hardcore Anthroposophers have zero interest in these things, which means what they gathered from Steiner's works was not even remotely close to what he intended. In that sense, it seems to me we can never judge the value of an endeavor in this domain by its failure to reach others in the proper way. After all, how many prominent individuals on the World stage have a copy of PoF or KHW on their desks? Even if they did, would they understand it as he intended? As Steiner reports, most of the philosophical minds it was directed toward failed to work with it and understand it properly.

On the other hand, it's not difficult to imagine some religious souls who work with MoT beginning to feel like they have come across something new, something revitalizing, and something that is subtly transforming their inner life, even if the details aren't too clear and there are many misconceptions at first. They may feel like they have stumbled across something of fundamental importance. What would such a soul do in this scenario? It would feel most at home praying for deeper insights and for pointers in the right direction. How many people would have had an easier time properly understanding your posts (or Steiner's works) as intended if they had prayed for that understanding? Unfortunately, that prayerful mood is relatively inaccessible when starting from the philosophical-scientific approach. I'm sure you agree that a soul who prays in that way will never fail to be directed toward the deeper teachings, insights, and exercises of Sun-initiates. In one way or another, they will be led to Steiner, BD, OMA, etc. (and the link from VT to Steiner is quite direct, it pops up immediately upon further research). Then the 'quiet' work from within the Church would have borne fruit for pneumatosophy and the soul would also feel like it was completely a result of its free inner process, rather than having mounds of esoteric facts shoved in its direction from the beginning.

[Federica]

and more self-pleasing speculations on speculations...

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Yeah, online communities are often hubs of strange personalities (what does this tell about us )

Rodriel, in the context of what I wrote to Ashvin above, whenever you have time, can you share something of your real-life experiences with the people who you have pursuaded to read MoT? I suppose there's a whole spectrum of results. Were there those who only gathered from there support for what they already knew as dogma? What about the others? Do you have any sense of what the most significant change was for them? And ultimately, was there anyone to approach spiritual science after that?

Haha, yes I know I'm a bit of an oddball myself.

I might have mentioned this a while back in the conversation, but the "Catholic project" is a very new thing for me personally. This has been my first super in depth conversation about it, as I have only in the past few years made the connections that I've been discussing with you all and have kept mostly silent about them, in keeping with both Steiner's and Tomberg's advice. As far as fellow Catholics whom I've been able to get to read MoT, I'm not sure that I can actually claim more than one or two. I first picked up Tomberg with a group of people of about 15 people who all read MoT around the same time. This group was a mixed Orthodox and Catholic artist collective. (The gentleman -- a friend of mine and Orthodox convert who is open to Steiner -- who made the only currently available audio recording of the book on YouTube was part of this group). There were mixed reactions in that group, some finding MoT very valuable and others seeing it as a distracting and possibly dangerous oddity. Pretty much everyone agreed on the power of the images as presented. Deeper spiritual scientific discussion did emerge within this group, but I was by far the most active participant. I found that the most productive conversations were those centering around the topic of the "I" and the blood which is somewhat of a novelty within Catholic and Orthodox contexts, but for which there is highly authoritative precedent in some 20th century theological work drawing on the German Idealist tradition.

I have recently engaged in discussion with some Thomists, one of whom is very sharp, who are at least somewhat scandalized by Steiner but nonetheless want to understand him. They are all casually familiar with Tomberg and find him an ally. Tomberg is spoken mostly quite highly of in this circle. No serious engagement, but there is a general air of respect. In preparation for this I've been attempting to broaden my understanding of Thomism so that these conversations can be actual dialogues instead of immediate standoffs. I don't have particularly high hopes for this effort, but it'll be a great initial foray.

In my more intimate personal life, spiritual science has deepened my relationships and activities beyond my ability to express. This is where I've found you can really plant lasting seeds of the spirit. I like to think that becoming fully active in my thinking, feeling, and willing has made me a better Christian. Lord have mercy. Tomberg's exercises have helped to imbue my thinking with depth of heart that I did not formerly know was a part of the human experience. One can feel the love of Christ spreading when these levels are being activated. It's truly a beautiful thing, and something that can never be taken from those who have been so blessed to experience this in their soul and share with brothers and sisters. These experiences then resonate with the Mass in such a way as to produce truly symphonic harmonic resonances that can elevate one into heavenly spheres. These harmonies then further reinforce the living activity in the outer world such that they radiate through the temporal plane like the Cross pervading space. And this is among normal, unsaintly people (but who am I to say who is and isn't favored?). Imagine what this could do for contemporary monastic communities. Go stand in front of the Eucharist in Sacrifice at the Altar of a Catholic cathedral and tell me if you find otherwise.

Here are some of the plainly spiritual scientific concepts I refer to more or less without reservation in any community:

-The fourfold (and sometimes 7 or 9-fold) human being
-The Christ Impulse
-Specific activities and roles of the hierarchies
-The term "Mystery of Golgotha"
-The descent of the "I" into human evolution
-The manifold relationships between thinking, feeling, and willing
-The basic esoteric elements of sleeping and waking
-The faculty of the Imagination
-The entire contents of PoF
-The seed exercise and daily review
-The basic facts of elemental beings

I don't always have occasion to discuss these things super directly with friends or family, but when they come up I speak freely and in ways I hope will be a benefit. In my experience, people are generally receptive to these ideas, at least at a cursory level. I say all this to indicate what the limits of the "Catholic project" have looked like for me in daily life.

You also asked earlier about my spiritual life's trajectory. I responded in detail to the same question from Federica some time ago, but to briefly recap here:

Raised Catholic --> agnostic (science and math interest) --> interest in consciousness and "noetic science" + Eastern religion --> back into Christianity through Jung --> Steiner and Re-entry into Church --> Tomberg

[Cleric]

Haha, yes I know I'm a bit of an oddball myself.

I might have mentioned this a while back in the conversation, but the "Catholic project" is a very new thing for me personally. This has been my first super in depth conversation about it, as I have only in the past few years made the connections that I've been discussing with you all and have kept mostly silent about them, in keeping with both Steiner's and Tomberg's advice. As far as fellow Catholics whom I've been able to get to read MoT, I'm not sure that I can actually claim more than one or two. I first picked up Tomberg with a group of people of about 15 people who all read MoT around the same time. This group was a mixed Orthodox and Catholic artist collective. (The gentleman -- a friend of mine and Orthodox convert who is open to Steiner -- who made the only currently available audio recording of the book on YouTube was part of this group). There were mixed reactions in that group, some finding MoT very valuable and others seeing it as a distracting and possibly dangerous oddity. Pretty much everyone agreed on the power of the images as presented. Deeper spiritual scientific discussion did emerge within this group, but I was by far the most active participant. I found that the most productive conversations were those centering around the topic of the "I" and the blood which is somewhat of a novelty within Catholic and Orthodox contexts, but for which there is highly authoritative precedent in some 20th century theological work drawing on the German Idealist tradition.

I have recently engaged in discussion with some Thomists, one of whom is very sharp, who are at least somewhat scandalized by Steiner but nonetheless want to understand him. They are all casually familiar with Tomberg and find him an ally. Tomberg is spoken mostly quite highly of in this circle. No serious engagement, but there is a general air of respect. In preparation for this I've been attempting to broaden my understanding of Thomism so that these conversations can be actual dialogues instead of immediate standoffs. I don't have particularly high hopes for this effort, but it'll be a great initial foray.

In my more intimate personal life, spiritual science has deepened my relationships and activities beyond my ability to express. This is where I've found you can really plant lasting seeds of the spirit. I like to think that becoming fully active in my thinking, feeling, and willing has made me a better Christian. Lord have mercy. Tomberg's exercises have helped to imbue my thinking with depth of heart that I did not formerly know was a part of the human experience. One can feel the love of Christ spreading when these levels are being activated. It's truly a beautiful thing, and something that can never be taken from those who have been so blessed to experience this in their soul and share with brothers and sisters. These experiences then resonate with the Mass in such a way as to produce truly symphonic harmonic resonances that can elevate one into heavenly spheres. These harmonies then further reinforce the living activity in the outer world such that they radiate through the temporal plane like the Cross pervading space. And this is among normal, unsaintly people (but who am I to say who is and isn't favored?). Imagine what this could do for contemporary monastic communities. Go stand in front of the Eucharist in Sacrifice at the Altar of a Catholic cathedral and tell me if you find otherwise.

Here are some of the plainly spiritual scientific concepts I refer to more or less without reservation in any community:

-The fourfold (and sometimes 7 or 9-fold) human being
-The Christ Impulse
-Specific activities and roles of the hierarchies
-The term "Mystery of Golgotha"
-The descent of the "I" into human evolution
-The manifold relationships between thinking, feeling, and willing
-The basic esoteric elements of sleeping and waking
-The faculty of the Imagination
-The entire contents of PoF
-The seed exercise and daily review
-The basic facts of elemental beings

I don't always have occasion to discuss these things super directly with friends or family, but when they come up I speak freely and in ways I hope will be a benefit. In my experience, people are generally receptive to these ideas, at least at a cursory level. I say all this to indicate what the limits of the "Catholic project" have looked like for me in daily life.

You also asked earlier about my spiritual life's trajectory. I responded in detail to the same question from Federica some time ago, but to briefly recap here:

Raised Catholic --> agnostic (science and math interest) --> interest in consciousness and "noetic science" + Eastern religion --> back into Christianity through Jung --> Steiner and Re-entry into Church --> Tomberg

Thanks, Rodriel, for all the details. In the same line, I wonder about the following.

The Catholic project, as discussed here, is mainly about vivifying the Church, as if not to waste its already existing potential. And this, of course, is logical. Not only about the RCC but for the Christian religion as a whole. It is only natural that the last 2k years of exoteric tradition should somehow evolve and reconnect with the deeper reality that has been preserved in secret all the time. Now, there's also the part where the RCC is destined to become the only backbone of humanity, but let's put that aside for the moment.

Seen as a whole, this is a certain vision of how things should develop, and I think we all agree that it is not something that we can undertake just like that (in the sense of "Alright, I'm starting to implement the project right now"). The most we can do is whisper in this or that member's ear about MoT, but the actual transformation of the RCC becomes more hazy toward the horizon. It's not clear how exactly it can happen, but we have the good faith that it will (for God, anything is possible).

My question is, besides the obvious fact that you try to enlighten such souls about the John stream, has the Catholic project changed anything else for you? For example, are there certain ideas from spiritual science that you have come to see as incompatible with the project? Maybe the threefold social order, or education based on spiritual scientific insight (of which Waldorf is the current attempt), health, arts, and so on. I hope you see what I am asking. It is very clear that VT focused entirely on Christian Hermeticism. Not only did he not try to irrigate the various fields of human activity with spiritual insight, but he says that this is not the job of the Hermeticist - science, art, religion, are outside of his scope. I mean, he supports the souls of the fields spiritually, from the background so to speak, but doesn't enter into the manifestations of the fields themselves. All these three tiers of human activity (corresponding to body, soul, spirit) are ultimately the expression of the Spirit. So if we trace the origins of all these fields, we should reach the spiritual world, and it is the logical task of humanity to make these gradients conscious. Otherwise, these tiers become disconnected (at the conscious level) from the higher life. It is not that they no longer manifest from the spiritual flow, but it's only that when clear consciousness of the gradient is not sought, the deeper currents of the activities are quickly taken over by other beings. Then science becomes completely utilitarian, art becomes eccentric, serving only to evoke sensual and soul feelings, often of quite decadent nature, and religion becomes fanaticism, where people fight over beliefs (since no one can consciously reach the spiritual sources of religion and its beliefs). In reality, it is only the Johnian who is in a position to show how any of these fields can be reconnected to the life source. If the fields are left on their own, it's far more likely that they'll simply degenerate even more (even if the Hermeticist prays for their soul from the background). Probably, it will be said that VT simply focused on the purely spiritual/soul Hermetic knowledge, while all these fields will be resurrected later, when the John impulse begins to gain power within the RCC, and from there it starts to stream out with new life (like the autonomous social streams).

For you personally, do you feel that the Catholic project has made you see things in such a way? That the focus should now be on Hermeticism, while the resurrection of the fields is a further stage of the project, when the replanted impulse begins to take strength within the RCC? Or more bluntly, do you think it is necessary that humanity should try to resurrect these fields through deepened life within the spiritual, even now, and even if it is outside the RCC? Or in still other words, have you lost interest in certain aspects of spiritual science, which maybe you have been enthusiastic about before, but now you see as premature or even misguided?

[AshvinP]

It is very clear that VT focused entirely on Christian Hermeticism. Not only did he not try to irrigate the various fields of human activity with spiritual insight, but he says that this is not the job of the Hermeticist - science, art, religion, are outside of his scope. I mean, he supports the souls of the fields spiritually, from the background so to speak, but doesn't enter into the manifestations of the fields themselves.

Cleric, I can already tell it will be difficult for Rodriel to respond when the Hermetic position is characterized in this way. Do you see how this feels like VT's statements are being reduced to their lowest common denominator of meaning, rather than taken seriously (and holistically)? Not to mention, VT's whole life story was that of entering into the manifestations of those fields and trying to contribute to their spiritualization. For example, he delved into the domain of international law and published works on how this whole field could be spiritualized.

VT says: "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, and 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 infuse the breath of life of their communal soul - analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."


I wanted to add this as a preface, because although this exploration has been enormously helpful for me and, I'm sure, for you and Rodriel as well, it seems that we desperately need to attain more clarity on this key aspect of the Hermetic-Catholic project. It feels like it is being artificially narrowed and constricted because that makes it an easier 'target', so to speak. When we imagine it's only about 'praying for souls from the background', then it's obviously not a viable option for the John infusion of our time.

[Federica]

It is very clear that VT focused entirely on Christian Hermeticism. Not only did he not try to irrigate the various fields of human activity with spiritual insight, but he says that this is not the job of the Hermeticist - science, art, religion, are outside of his scope. I mean, he supports the souls of the fields spiritually, from the background so to speak, but doesn't enter into the manifestations of the fields themselves.

Cleric, I can already tell it will be difficult for Rodriel to respond when the Hermetic position is characterized in this way. Do you see how this feels like VT's statements are being reduced to their lowest common denominator of meaning, rather than taken seriously (and holistically)? Not to mention, VT's whole life story was that of entering into the manifestations of those fields and trying to contribute to their spiritualization. For example, he delved into the domain of international law and published works on how this whole field could be spiritualized.

VT says: "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, and 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 infuse the breath of life of their communal soul - analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."


I wanted to add this as a preface, because although this exploration has been enormously helpful for me and, I'm sure, for you and Rodriel as well, it seems that we desperately need to attain more clarity on this key aspect of the Hermetic-Catholic project. It feels like it is being artificially narrowed and constricted because that makes it an easier 'target', so to speak. When we imagine it's only about 'praying for souls from the background', then it's obviously not a viable option for the John infusion of our time.

And this is precisely an expression of the double game (which has received no satisfactory comments so far, and it's easy to understand why), that induces the feeling of superiority, among other things. You don't get your hands dirty with direct action. You simply and magically infuse the life spirit in human activity from without (or should we say, from above), but on occasion, as you see occasional fit, without any committment. If an occasion arises to throw your pearls of wisdom and life, you may gracefully throw them.

[Cleric]

Cleric, I can already tell it will be difficult for Rodriel to respond when the Hermetic position is characterized in this way. Do you see how this feels like VT's statements are being reduced to their lowest common denominator of meaning, rather than taken seriously (and holistically)? Not to mention, VT's whole life story was that of entering into the manifestations of those fields and trying to contribute to their spiritualization. For example, he delved into the domain of international law and published works on how this whole field could be spiritualized.

VT says: "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, and 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 infuse the breath of life of their communal soul - analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."


I wanted to add this as a preface, because although this exploration has been enormously helpful for me and, I'm sure, for you and Rodriel as well, it seems that we desperately need to attain more clarity on this key aspect of the Hermetic-Catholic project. It feels like it is being artificially narrowed and constricted because that makes it an easier 'target', so to speak. When we imagine it's only about 'praying for souls from the background', then it's obviously not a viable option for the John infusion of our time.

Again, I agree that I express more sharply to make the point, but I still believe it to be fully valid. Take, for example, education. Waldorf, which is by no means perfect, attempts to provide a service similar in the spirit of how the Church has been considered here - as something that provides the rock foundations which can naturally support future higher development (if the soul is so inclined). Except, it doesn't provide that service by instilling religious belief and moral values from an early age, but by attempting to ensure such unfoldment of the sheaths that the will, feelings, and thinking remain flexible and unprejudiced, until they are able to naturally accommodate the free "I"-spirit. So it is a natural question. I can very well imagine, that if I'm to embrace the Catholic project, I'll always feel the inner need to somehow lead things to the unity of the RCC. As such, I'll probably have thoughts like this: "Yes, the idea of such education is in principle on the right track, but it will remain a withering side branch unless it is reinvented from within the Church. The Church has always been an educational organ, so it's a matter of unifying the religious education with insights about the human structure derived from spiritual science." I think everyone can grasp what I'm saying. My question is whether Rodriel, since his focus on the Catholic project, has come to feel something of this sort. To feel that these fields of human activity are destined to be shaky unless they reemerge from within the RCC organism.

[AshvinP]

Cleric, I can already tell it will be difficult for Rodriel to respond when the Hermetic position is characterized in this way. Do you see how this feels like VT's statements are being reduced to their lowest common denominator of meaning, rather than taken seriously (and holistically)? Not to mention, VT's whole life story was that of entering into the manifestations of those fields and trying to contribute to their spiritualization. For example, he delved into the domain of international law and published works on how this whole field could be spiritualized.

VT says: "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, and 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 infuse the breath of life of their communal soul - analogous to the administration of the sacrament of Holy Communion."


I wanted to add this as a preface, because although this exploration has been enormously helpful for me and, I'm sure, for you and Rodriel as well, it seems that we desperately need to attain more clarity on this key aspect of the Hermetic-Catholic project. It feels like it is being artificially narrowed and constricted because that makes it an easier 'target', so to speak. When we imagine it's only about 'praying for souls from the background', then it's obviously not a viable option for the John infusion of our time.

Again, I agree that I express more sharply to make the point, but I still believe it to be fully valid. Take, for example, education. Waldorf, which is by no means perfect, attempts to provide a service similar in the spirit of how the Church has been considered here - as something that provides the rock foundations which can naturally support future higher development (if the soul is so inclined). Except, it doesn't provide that service by instilling religious belief and moral values from an early age, but by attempting to ensure such unfoldment of the sheaths that the will, feelings, and thinking remain flexible and unprejudiced, until they are able to naturally accommodate the free "I"-spirit. So it is a natural question. I can very well imagine, that if I'm to embrace the Catholic project, I'll always feel the inner need to somehow lead things to the unity of the RCC. As such, I'll probably have thoughts like this: "Yes, the idea of such education is in principle on the right track, but it will remain a withering side branch unless it is reinvented from within the Church. The Church has always been an educational organ, so it's a matter of unifying the religious education with insights about the human structure derived from spiritual science." I think everyone can grasp what I'm saying. My question is whether Rodriel, since his focus on the Catholic project, has come to feel something of this sort. To feel that these fields of human activity are destined to be shaky unless they reemerge from within the RCC organism.

Ok thanks, I think that clarifies the issue further. From my perspective, there is certainly a tension between the Hermetic vision and the more Anthroposophical vision of establishing parallel communities and organizations that undertake scientific, religious, educational, etc. work out of deeper spiritual insights. Which is not to say this parallel track is forbidden or it is imagined there is no value to them, but that the most fruitful work will likely be seeded and emerge from within existing structures like the RCC, Catholic schools, national governments, the scientific academy, and so on. Personally, I can see many reasons why that would be the case and why something like Waldorf education, while probably one of the more shining examples of the Anthroposophical public-facing endeavor, will meet obstacles and limitations in terms of its efficacy and reach that cannot be surmounted, and which may eventually contribute to its degeneration. But I can see the other perspective as well, and how we may be indefinitely putting off this spiritual work if we imagine everything must be reinvented from scratch from within the RCC before we take further steps. I am definitely interested in hearing more of Rodriel's perspective on the issue.

It's also interesting that Steiner expressed the following (once again from GA 342):

"You see, when we set up the Waldorf School here – I would like to show you things from the perspective of the here and now – when we set up the Waldorf School here, the first thing that had to be done was to act more in line with the spirit of the times and to make it clear to the world that our aim in setting up this Waldorf School was not to found a school of world view. It is the worst slander against the Waldorf School when people outside say, and this is already being repeated as far away as America, that it exists to teach anthroposophy to children. That is not its purpose! It is not a school of world-view. What can be gained through anthroposophy can be incorporated into pedagogy and didactics. Only that which can be fathomed by anthroposophy should lie in the pedagogical treatment itself. Therefore, from the very beginning — because it cannot be any different as long as you have not yet worked — we have had a Catholic priest teach religious education to Catholic children and a Protestant priest teach religious education to Protestant children. Now, the Waldorf School was initially created for the children of the Waldorf-Astoria workers; they were the foundation. Many children of Social Democrats and dissidents came along. The question arose: should these children grow up without any religion? There was a certain kind of concern. But there were also parents who did not want their children to grow up without religion. So we were obliged to give some kind of anthroposophical religious education, just as we had Catholic instruction given to Catholic children and Protestant instruction given to Protestant children. And most children found it useful, at least I think so, isn't that right?"

[Federica]

Speaking of practical action in the fields of human activity, let's appreciate the abyss between Steiner's vision and Tomberg's.

Call to mind the Mystery of Golgotha. Only a hundred years after the Mystery of Golgotha, the most brilliant Roman writer, Tacitus, writes about Christ as if he were someone almost unknown, who had met his death over in Asia. ... And it is possible to paint a word-picture of a significant fact: There above is the Roman civilisation—in the arenas, in brilliant performances, in everything that takes place in Roman social life, in the life of the state. Below, underground, are those regions known as the catacombs. There many people gather together, gather by the graves of those who, like themselves, were believers in the Mystery of Golgotha.
…
Let us take the time a few centuries later. What had spread so brilliantly in Rome at that time has now disappeared; Christian civilization has emerged across the surface of the earth, where Roman culture had once been. Christianity is beginning to spread in Europe. When one considers such a picture, one sees how things actually proceed in the development of humanity. And often, when contemplating the present time, one might say to oneself: The Anthroposophists—they certainly don't dig themselves into the earth today; that's not common practice today, otherwise they would have to do so. They may be found in outwardly as splendid and beautiful premises as is the case here, but ask yourself whether those people who today call conventional civilization their own know more about what is going on here than the Romans knew about what was going on down in the catacombs of Rome. One can no longer speak so literally; the situation is more spiritually translated, but otherwise the same. And if one then thinks ahead a few centuries in thought, one may, if nothing else, have the courageous hope that the picture might change. Those who know as little about Anthroposophy today as the Romans knew about Christianity will find all this very fantastic; But no one can work in the world who cannot courageously look toward the path opening before them. And Anthroposophists want to courageously look toward the path opening before them. That is why such images arise.
…
courage and strength must be there so that Anthroposophy does not one day suffer the same fate as Gnosis, but rather so that it can unfold its effectiveness. When one sees this, one always looks with a certain strong satisfaction at all the individual undertakings that come about like this conference; for such things then constitute what is meant to ensure that Anthroposophy continues to work powerfully. Anthroposophy has, I might say, only glimpsed into this pedagogical course through small windows. Many things have been pointed out that could show how Anthroposophy approaches reality, how it truly peers into immediate, practical life. Because everything that is real is also spiritually permeated, one can only recognize reality if one has an eye for the spiritual. Of course it was not possible to speak here about anthroposophy as such. On the other hand it was perfectly possible to speak about a sphere of activity in which anthroposophy can work fruitfully: I mean the sphere of education.
In the case of eurythmy for instance it was destiny itself that spoke. Today, looking at things from outside, it might well be imagined that at a certain moment someone was struck with a sudden thought: We must have a eurythmy. This was not so, but at that time there was a family whose father had died.
There were a number of children and the mother was concerned about their welfare. She was anxious that something worthwhile should develop out of them. The anthroposophical movement was still small. The question was put to me: What might develop out of the children? It was in connection with this question that the first steps were taken to come to something in the nature of eurythmy. To begin with the attempt was confined to the very narrowest limits. So it was out of these circumstances that the first indications for eurythmy were given. Destiny had spoken. Its manifestation was made possible through the fact that there was an anthroposophy and that someone standing on anthroposophical ground was seeking her life's career. And soon after—it did not take so very long—the first pupils who had learned eurythmy themselves became teachers and were able to carry eurythmy out into the world. So, with the help of Frau Dr. Steiner, who took it under her wing, eurythmy has become what it is today. In such a case one may well feel convinced that eurythmy has not been sought: eurythmy has sought anthroposophy.
Now let us take medicine. Frau Dr. Wegman has been a member of the Anthroposophical Society ever since there was a Society. Her first attempts to heal out of an artistic perception gave her the predisposition to work medically within the Anthroposophical Movement. As a whole-hearted anthroposophist she devoted herself to medicine. So here too, medicine has grown out of the being of anthroposophy and today exists firmly within it because its growth has come about through one particular personality.
And further…

from Human Values in Education - GA 310 X. The Relation of the Art of Teaching to the Anthroposophical Movement

On the contrary, Tomberg would deny that the being of Anthroposophy even exists as a higher being, and that it can grow through the will and practical initiative of human individuals. Because only demons, or egregores, according to him, are created in this way, by the “fever of the will and imagination”. His argument is that positive beings only ray out, whereas created ebbs of psychic energy would only fold on themselves, which can only be evil. Tomberg would also deny the rightfulness of becoming active in human fields of activity, right into practical life. For him such intoxicating fever of the will is pretentious, and detrimental. He would not have the pretension to imagine that a Hermeticist can discover the remedy for cancer, for example [peculiar reference... probably to the pretentious one who claimed to have "discovered" such a remedy]. Instead, one has to observe silence, and retreat from action. Otherwise, temperance is lost and evil comes in. Action in practical life is nothing to get entangled with, also because evil can’t be combated actively. The sole presence of the good is enough, as a practical solution to combat evil.

We people of the twentieth century know that the “great pests” of our time are the egregores of “ideological superstructures”, which have cost humanity more life and suffering than the great epidemics of the Middle Ages. And having this knowledge, is it not time that we said to ourselves: let us be silent. Let us make our arbitrary will and imagination silent; let us impose on them the discipline of silence. Is this not one of the four traditional rules of Hermeticism: to dare, to will, to know, to be silent? To be silent is more than to keep things secret; it is more even than to guard oneself from profaning the holy things to which a respectful silence is owed. To be silent is, above all, the great magical commandment of not engendering demons through our arbitrary will and imagination; it is the task of silencing arbitrary will and imagination.
…
To be silent is the Temperance of the fourteenth Arcanum of the Tarot, opposed to the intoxication whose essence and dangers are revealed by the fifteenth Arcanum of the Tarot. The inspiration of “Temperance” can be turned into the intoxication of “The Devil”. ..
…
Firstly, how does one combat them? Good does not combat evil in the sense of destructive action. It “combats” it by the sole fact of its presence. Just as darkness gives way to the presence of light, so does evil give way before the presence of good. Modern depth psychology has discovered and put into practice the therapeutic principle of bringing unconscious complexes to the light of consciousness. Because—so it affirms—the light of consciousness renders the obsessional complex not only visible but also impotent. This important discovery of modern psychology is in complete accord with the spiritual reality of the “struggle” of the celestial hierarchies against evil. Because this “struggle”, also, amounts to their presence alone, i.e. to bringing evil to the light of day. Light drives out darkness. This simple truth is the practical key to the problem of how to combat demons.

Dear Unknown Friend, 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 somewhat puerile pretension 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.


[In passing, it's also seamlessly denied that Steiner's remedy to cancer is effective. It can be noticed that the extemporaneous example of cancer, and within it, doubly, the remark about the inexistence of a remedy, are both quite out of place in the sentence, and passage, considering the high-level character of the elaboration that is being sketched. This makes it likely that the reference is not a random one, but that Tomberg intended to make a seamless reference to Steiner, and his pretentious attitude to mess with all science and practical life. He is subtly marking the distinction between Steiner's science, which he strongly rejects, and Hermeticism.]