Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

At this point, I see it as an obstinate attempt to 'meditate your way' living idea beings (indeed, that's what they are) and their condensations, to make them fit your strong desire to undo the contradiction between RS and VT.

Federica,

Let's look at what Cleric wrote on the other thread:

Here's one more angle that will hopefully help get a better perspective. Consider how Steiner spoke about
1. Wisdom of Man (Anthroposophy)
2. Wisdom of the Soul (Psychosophy)
3. Wisdom of the Spirit (Pneumatosophy)
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/WisdoMan ... index.html

We usually take Anthroposophy as a more encompassing term, including the whole of spiritual science, but in the above context, it must be seen more specifically.
1. The intuitive life experienced when the full spiritual life intersects with the embodied spectrum - body and intellect
2. The intuitive life experienced within the tensions of the streams of destiny/karma (acting as a carrier flow for the above) - soul
3. The intuitive life experienced within the archetypal creative currents of the Cosmos (carrier flow for all the above) - spirit

From your perspective, is there a contradiction between #2 and #3? From mine, there is none, and therefore there is no strong desire to 'undo' a contradiction that doesn't exist in the first place. All such 'contradictions' only take shape at the intellectual scale of weighing decohered mental pictures against one another, and putting an "=" or an "≠" sign between them. But that is a game that only concerns the intellect and positively obstructs attuning our consciousness along the gradient of living idea-beings (carrier waves) that exist in evolving, relative relations with and within one another.

[Federica]

At this point, I see it as an obstinate attempt to 'meditate your way' living idea beings (indeed, that's what they are) and their condensations, to make them fit your strong desire to undo the contradiction between RS and VT.

Federica,

Let's look at what Cleric wrote on the other thread:

Here's one more angle that will hopefully help get a better perspective. Consider how Steiner spoke about
1. Wisdom of Man (Anthroposophy)
2. Wisdom of the Soul (Psychosophy)
3. Wisdom of the Spirit (Pneumatosophy)
https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/WisdoMan ... index.html

We usually take Anthroposophy as a more encompassing term, including the whole of spiritual science, but in the above context, it must be seen more specifically.
1. The intuitive life experienced when the full spiritual life intersects with the embodied spectrum - body and intellect
2. The intuitive life experienced within the tensions of the streams of destiny/karma (acting as a carrier flow for the above) - soul
3. The intuitive life experienced within the archetypal creative currents of the Cosmos (carrier flow for all the above) - spirit

From your perspective, is there a contradiction between #2 and #3? From mine, there is none, and therefore there is no strong desire to 'undo' a contradiction that doesn't exist in the first place. All such 'contradictions' only take shape at the intellectual scale of weighing decohered mental pictures against one another, and putting an "=" or an "≠" sign between them. But that is a game that only concerns the intellect and positively obstructs attuning our consciousness along the gradient of living idea-beings (carrier waves) that exist in evolving, relative relations with and within one another.

What you state here is the whole problem, Ashvin. There IS a patent contra-diction. Still, you openly deny it, pretending that it's only contradictory in the intellect, but as soon as it's taken in higher cognition, it vanishes. In other words, you want to meditate it away. This has been your obstinate approach in other recent questions too. This seems very problematic to me.

If the contra-diction doesn't exist, what have we been discussing in the 14 pages of the "Tomberg and Anthroposophy" thread then? In your own words, VT was for "placing knowledge of reincarnation into the domain of personal certainty". This purpose is in indisputable contra-diction with Spiritual Science. Steiner's impulse was to mark a historical turning point in occultism. He began to largely and publicly spread knowledge of the higher worlds and of reincarnation. This difference exists. It cannot be meditated away!

And it is a considerable difference, both in its nature and in its effects. Why? Because Tomberg’s approach cannot be pursued without betraying Spiritual Science. Because SS demands that the reality of modern Initiation is spread as widely, finely, and steadfastly as humanly possible. Steiner's life is the persistent, consistent, uninterrupted condensation of such impulse! No meditation can ever come up with the conclusion that such difference "doesn't exist". It IS there, and it has huge effects. For example, because of it, followers of VT will miss precious opportunities to make Spiritual Science known, debated, and researched. You have yourself argued that, as an example, the necessary opposition of Levin's transhumanism is a lost cause, without an understanding of reincarnation (not an exact quote, but you get the idea - it was your idea!)

There are, and there will be, countless similar situations. How can one reasonably and responsibly say that the difference doesn't exist? This is not only wrong, but a detrimental position...

[AshvinP]

From your perspective, is there a contradiction between #2 and #3?

What you state here is the whole problem, Ashvin. There IS a patent contra-diction. Still, you openly deny it, pretending that it's only contradictory in the intellect, but as soon as it's taken in higher cognition, it vanishes. In other words, you want to meditate it away. This has been your obstinate approach in other recent questions too. This seems very problematic to me.

If the contra-diction doesn't exist, what have we been discussing in the 14 pages of the "Tomberg and Anthroposophy" thread then? In your own words, VT was for "placing knowledge of reincarnation into the domain of personal certainty". This purpose is in indisputable contra-diction with Spiritual Science. Steiner's impulse was to mark a historical turning point in occultism. He began to largely and publicly spread knowledge of the higher worlds and of reincarnation. This difference exists. It cannot be meditated away!

And it is a considerable difference, both in its nature and in its effects. Why? Because Tomberg’s approach cannot be pursued without betraying Spiritual Science. Because SS demands that the reality of modern Initiation is spread as widely, finely, and steadfastly as humanly possible. Steiner's life is the persistent, consistent, uninterrupted condensation of such impulse! No meditation can ever come up with the conclusion that such difference "doesn't exist". It IS there, and it has huge effects. For example, because of it, followers of VT will miss precious opportunities to make Spiritual Science known, debated, and researched. You have yourself argued that, as an example, the necessary opposition of Levin's transhumanism is a lost cause, without an understanding of reincarnation (not an exact quote, but you get the idea - it was your idea!)

There are, and there will be, countless similar situations. How can one reasonably and responsibly say that the difference doesn't exist? This is not only wrong, but a detrimental position...

I asked a simple question in bold, are you refusing to contemplate and answer it?

Cleric's distinction between 1, 2, and 3 is so helpful because it invites us to think about this whole topic as a shadow of intuitive activity at deeper scales (rather than a discursive debate between opposing intellectual positions). The intuitive life that is experienced across these different scales is, of course, non-exclusionary, non-contradictory, non-reducible, etc. We can't orient properly to these dynamics through any sort of abstract intellectual analysis, rather we need to feel the way in which intuitive life is experienced within certain constraints and how these scales of experience relate to and complement one another. We can then also see how certain soul moods and conceptual positions take shape when one scale of intuitive life is somehow flattened into the others.

Yet this seems to be the thing that you continually resist: a phenomenological exploration of the inner dynamics. You seem wholly uninterested in such questions and instead focused on some abstract intellectual game of identifying contradictions, as if this is what it means to take Anthroposophy into one's innermost being. Is it then a coincidence that you also speak of "rare clairvoyance" and how most souls can be satisfied manipulating intellectual representations of the deeper realities? Is it a coincidence that you don't feel too drawn toward Tomberg's more conservative soul mood when disseminating facts of occult science, and therefore want to place his whole approach into an intellectual box and set it in opposition to some other intellectual box that you label "Anthroposophy" or "spiritual science", which are both only your flattened caricatures?

All of these things are related. I have also had issues with the temptation to communicate spiritual insights immediately and prematurely, and share my opinions on all sorts of spiritual connections, to immediately condense my intuitions into concrete mental pictures that can be built up into a solid intellectual framework of understanding, while avoiding a more meditative approach. Yet I have gradually recognized this as a limitation and an obstacle to higher development, whereas you are seeking to justify it as the only proper way for most souls without "rare clairvoyance" to gain awareness of spiritual reality. This is the central and recurring issue in practically all of our recent discussions. Until you're willing to acknowledge it, set aside the intellectual game, and try to orient to the inner dynamics we are discussing through these topics, which requires feeling one's way into the same states experienced by clairvoyants, I have no interest in continuing, because that lack of orientation is exactly what keeps you perpetually misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the ideas being expressed.

[Federica]

I asked a simple question in bold, are you refusing to contemplate and answer it?

Cleric's distinction between 1, 2, and 3 is so helpful because it invites us to think about this whole topic as a shadow of intuitive activity at deeper scales (rather than a discursive debate between opposing intellectual positions). The intuitive life that is experienced across these different scales is, of course, non-exclusionary, non-contradictory, non-reducible, etc. We can't orient properly to these dynamics through any sort of abstract intellectual analysis, rather we need to feel the way in which intuitive life is experienced within certain constraints and how these scales of experience relate to and complement one another. We can then also see how certain soul moods and conceptual positions take shape when one scale of intuitive life is somehow flattened into the others.

Yet this seems to be the thing that you continually resist: a phenomenological exploration of the inner dynamics. You seem wholly uninterested in such questions and instead focused on some abstract intellectual game of identifying contradictions, as if this is what it means to take Anthroposophy into one's innermost being. Is it then a coincidence that you also speak of "rare clairvoyance" and how most souls can be satisfied manipulating intellectual representations of the deeper realities? Is it a coincidence that you don't feel too drawn toward Tomberg's more conservative soul mood when disseminating facts of occult science, and therefore want to place his whole approach into an intellectual box and set it in opposition to some other intellectual box that you label "Anthroposophy" or "spiritual science", which are both only your flattened caricatures?

All of these things are related. I have also had issues with the temptation to communicate spiritual insights immediately and prematurely, and share my opinions on all sorts of spiritual connections, to immediately condense my intuitions into concrete mental pictures that can be built up into a solid intellectual framework of understanding, while avoiding a more meditative approach. Yet I have gradually recognized this as a limitation and an obstacle to higher development, whereas you are seeking to justify it as the only proper way for most souls without "rare clairvoyance" to gain awareness of spiritual reality. This is the central and recurring issue in practically all of our recent discussions. Until you're willing to acknowledge it, set aside the intellectual game, and try to orient to the inner dynamics we are discussing through these topics, which requires feeling one's way into the same states experienced by clairvoyants, I have no interest in continuing, because that lack of orientation is exactly what keeps you perpetually misunderstanding and mischaracterizing the ideas being expressed.

Your question is an empty question, a rhetorical question with an obvious answer. Of course there's no contradiction between Soul and Spirit. Needless to say, this tells nothing about the problems posed by VT's approach. You say these problems don't exist outside the intellect. However, Cleric asked a question, which you have just cut off. Are you refusing to contemplate it? Would you say the risks of VT's approach without SS indicated by Cleric don't exist? Would you say Cleric is playing an intellectual game?

We often forget how prepared we are to approach things thanks to spiritual science. Then we can appreciate the masterful ways in which Soul Wisdom is conveyed by VT. But we should also ask: How would things stand if this work was our main source of navigation and we knew nothing of Spirit Wisdom? Would we ever reach a point where we feel that we need to go further? Or we would rather wait for the Church aura itself to evolve and carry us? Then, in whose service it is if human beings do not notice that they are already unconsciously moving within the Spirit worlds (and instead await the Church to reach them and guide souls through updated rituals and sacraments)?

Answer that, then we can discuss phenomenology.

[AshvinP]

Are you refusing to contemplate it? Would you say the risks of VT's approach without SS that Cleric indicated don't exist? Would you say Cleric is playing an intellectual game?

I have been highlighting these same risks that entire thread before Cleric's comment

Now if you really don't see this in my comments, and still choose to pretend that I have been doing something dialectical opposite, then the level of bad faith here is simply too much to continue toward the ever-elusive horizon of phenomenological exploration in these recent exchanges.

[Federica]

Are you refusing to contemplate it? Would you say the risks of VT's approach without SS that Cleric indicated don't exist? Would you say Cleric is playing an intellectual game?

I have been highlighting these same risks that entire thread before Cleric's comment

Now if you really don't see this in my comments, and still choose to pretend that I have been doing something dialectical opposite, then the level of bad faith here is simply too much to continue toward the ever-elusive horizon of phenomenological exploration in these recent exchanges.

If you really agree with those same risks, then why come up with a meager (for the purposes) Steiner quote and try to make out of that an entire case for how SS reflects VT's attitude of keeping reincarnation a private matter? Anyway, let's explore the phenomenology, since I've never been opposed to that.

I have already described how, in the changing conditions of our lives, it is certainly often justified to refrain from speaking about reincarnation. In this sense, I’m in no mood that supposedly would involve screaming about it from the rooftops. Indeed, the phenomenological aspect has to deal with a variety of conditions, and I know first hand how ineffective and inconvenient it can be to try and be open about these topics within one’s social circles, only to gain no other results than being judged, challenged, or mocked. I’m sure we all know first hand about that. However, Steiner was also regularly challenged, judged, mocked, and much worse than that - for spreading the word of spiritual science.

This said I think that, even if the concrete ways in which the ideas are discussed and spread should be carefully reasoned, there should be an ideal to contribute to the spreading of SS, inwardly and outwardly, to the extent that it is reasonable and possible. This is not only with the aim of offering others the opportunity to discover life-changing insights, but also as a continuous stimulus to self-discipline and self-improvement, to refine one’s own understanding. I often imagine how I would hypothetically convey the most basic ideas to someone else, or to specific persons - what images what sequence, what words.... I often take notes of these 'explanations', and plans for a consistent order of discussion. Perhaps in some years, I will feel that it’s worth sowing these seeds in some concrete way. For now I limit the focused echanges of this kind, because my understanding is not deep enough, among other reasons. But the ideal is there, and it already affects my spiritual activity, and hopefully others', in positive ways.

Now compare to this, the introspective ideal of cultivating a religious impulse in dicothomical way. The full truth is contemplated in exclusively inner relation with the Divinity, while no responsibility is taken, present of propsective, for igniting a spark in others through external deeds. Only in prayer and meditation may I dare to express certain desires, but I rely on the aggregative and guiding power of the Church for taking care of all communal and collective interests. This context sets a completely different inner attitude. There is the supposition that, because the majority is not ready, it’s best to conceal the fact of reincarnation and mantain a low-profile, by default. There is the de facto de-prioritizing of the general human interest. I may inwardly wish for a positive collective progression, but not that I myself bring about impression of selfless interests in the flow of life (I can be generous and open, but I will have to draw a line, and hold a secret). There is the necessity to prepare for moral stunts, because sooner or later the situation arises when I'll have to lie by omission, within the framework of the Church, lest conduct a secluded life. And there is the feeling of keeping a secret, as said, with all the dichotomous aspects entailed. I could go on, but let's pause here and ask: How can this be remotely complementary with the ideal of the spiritual scientific approach?

[AshvinP]

If you really agree with those same risks, then why come up with a meager (for the purposes) Steiner quote and try to make out of that an entire case for how SS reflects VT's attitude of keeping reincarnation a private matter? Anyway, let's explore the phenomenology, since I've never been opposed to that.

I have already described how, in the changing conditions of our lives, it is certainly often justified to refrain from speaking about reincarnation. In this sense, I’m in no mood that supposedly would involve screaming about it from the rooftops. Indeed, the phenomenological aspect has to deal with a variety of conditions, and I know first hand how ineffective and inconvenient it can be to try and be open about these topics within one’s social circles, only to gain no other results than being judged, challenged, or mocked. I’m sure we all know first hand about that. However, Steiner was also regularly challenged, judged, mocked, and much worse than that - for spreading the word of spiritual science.

This said I think that, even if the concrete ways in which the ideas are discussed and spread should be carefully reasoned, there should be an ideal to contribute to the spreading of SS, inwardly and outwardly, to the extent that it is reasonable and possible. This is not only with the aim of offering others the opportunity to discover life-changing insights, but also as a continuous stimulus to self-discipline and self-improvement, to refine one’s own understanding. I often imagine how I would hypothetically convey the most basic ideas to someone else, or to specific persons - what images what sequence, what words.... I often take notes of these 'explanations', and plans for a consistent order of discussion. Perhaps in some years, I will feel that it’s worth sowing these seeds in some concrete way. For now I limit the focused echanges of this kind, because my understanding is not deep enough, among other reasons. But the ideal is there, and it already affects my spiritual activity, and hopefully others', in positive ways.

Now compare to this, the introspective ideal of cultivating a religious impulse in dicothomical way. The full truth is contemplated in exclusively inner relation with the Divinity, while no responsibility is taken, present of propsective, for igniting a spark in others through external deeds. Only in prayer and meditation may I dare to express certain desires, but I rely on the aggregative and guiding power of the Church for taking care of all communal and collective interests. This context sets a completely different inner attitude. There is the supposition that, because the majority is not ready, it’s best to conceal the fact of reincarnation and mantain a low-profile, by default. There is the de facto de-prioritizing of the general human interest. I may inwardly wish for a positive collective progression, but not that I myself bring about impression of selfless interests in the flow of life (I can be generous and open, but I will have to draw a line, and hold a secret). There is the necessity to prepare for moral stunts, because sooner or later the situation arises when I'll have to lie by omission, within the framework of the Church, lest conduct a secluded life. And there is the feeling of keeping a secret, as said, with all the dichotomous aspects entailed. I could go on, but let's pause here and ask: How can this be remotely complementary with the ideal of the spiritual scientific approach?

All of what you say above makes sense. Except, when we get to the 3rd paragraph, you begin describing an 'ideal' that neither Tomberg nor I would pursue. Just as little did I "aim to undo the collapsed experiences perceived in embodied life, and meditate away the condensations" or to "deny the wavefunction's collapse", do I aim toward some ideal of "concealing the fact of reincarnation from the majority". These are all gross caricatures. I tried to clarify, in this post, the kind of phenomenological exploration I am actually interested in, and what I was actually doing with that 'meager' quote of Steiner. I can only hope you can remain open to taking all of my indications seriously, as steps of a holistic 'dance routine' that hangs together, rather than choosing which ones to focus on and which ones to ignore or attribute to some subsequent attempt at shifting the meaning.

What can be complementary with spiritual science, i.e., the pursuit of higher organs of perception and the communications of the relations discerned through them, is the Wisdom of the soul that becomes conscious of its soul-level constraints and factors these into its higher striving for spiritual knowledge. Not only is it complementary, but it becomes entirely necessary if we don't want to remain with abstract mental tokens about "reincarnation", mock-up versions that only prepare us to experience the 'real deal' in some future time, but to begin perceiving something of its reality that expresses through the rhythms of our whole human experience, as individuals and collectives. What it means to be active in pursuing such knowledge is quite the opposite of what it means to be active in pursuing intellectual frameworks about spiritual realities. In fact, great durations of quiet contemplation, disciplined training, dwelling on inner experiences, silence of opinions, prayerful submission and surrender, and so on, are a critical ingredient of actively pursuing higher knowledge. It is an integral part of becoming responsible esotericists who are eventually in a position to productively contribute to the dissemination of such knowledge.

As one reference:

https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/Psych/En ... 25p02.html

Let us consider a striking example: Let us assume that someone has a longing to be the reincarnation of Mary Magdalene. (I have already stated that I have counted during my lifetime twenty-four such Magdalenes!) Let us assume also that this wish is not as yet admitted: we do not need to admit to ourselves our own wishes, that is not necessary. But a woman reads the story of Mary Magdalene, and it pleases her exceedingly. The desire to be Mary Magdalene may arise at once in her subconscious mind while in the surface consciousness nothing is present but the attraction of this character. It pleases the person in question. In the subconsciousness, unknown to its possessor, there is a growing desire to be this Mary Magdalene. This individual goes through the world, and as long as nothing intervenes in her upper consciousness, that is to say, as far as she knows, she is simply pleased with Mary Magdalene. The ardent desire to be Mary Magdalene is in her subconscious mind, but she knows nothing about that, so it does not trouble her. She is guided by the details of the ordinary consciousness, and may go through the world as though she had no such injurious subconscious desire. But let us assume that, as a result of employing this or that occult method of reaching the subconscious, this woman succeeds in descending into herself. She might not become aware of a desire to be Mary Magdalene as she would of a headache. If she did her attitude towards her desire would be the same as towards a pain: she would just try to get rid of it. But in the case of an irregular penetration this desire presents itself as something outside the personality. The vision pretends to say: Thou art Mary Magdalene! It stands before her, projecting itself as a fact, and a human being, as evolution is today, is unable to control such a condition with the ego. With good, correct, and careful schooling this cannot happen, for then the ego goes along into every sphere; but as soon as something enters the consciousness without the accompanying presence of the ego it is produced as an objective fact. This observer believes that she recalls events surrounding Mary Magdalene, and identifies herself with her.

This is a real possibility. I emphasize this today in order that you may gather from it the fact that only careful schooling, and caution in regard to your entrance into the domain of occultism can save you from falling into error. It is to be understood that you must first see a whole world before you, must note objects around you, excluding however that which you relate to yourself, or which is within you, even though it appears as a world tableau—if you know that it is well to regard what you first see only as the projection of your own inner life, then you have a good corrective for the errors along the way. This is the best of all: regard, as a general rule, everything as phenomena emanating from yourself. Most of them arise out of our wishes, vanities, from our ambitions, in short, from characteristics relating to the egotism of humanity. These things project themselves, for the most part, outward, and you may now raise the question: How can we avoid these errors? How can we save ourselves from them?
...
We do not learn this primarily through our consciousness. If we remain entirely within the confines of our mental life there is then no possibility of differentiation. This possibility lies only in the slow occult training of the soul.

I hope you can appreciate how this is a second-order level of discussion, Federica, and perhaps it's not the one that you are interested in having, but it's the only one that I have been having across these threads. It is concerned with the practical realities of spiritual life, of the soul that wants to concretely grow into deeper scales of its existence. This soul has little trouble recognizing what both Steiner and Tomberg were up to in their artistic treatments of intuitive realities and how their detailed explorations of those realities can be complementary for its practical striving to not only know facts of spiritual science, but to live those facts. One only needs to contemplate the fact that MoT was written, let alone many other books and lectures given, to see that Tomberg took utmost responsibility for igniting a spark in others through external deeds, just as Steiner did.

[Cleric]

I moved the posts here.

On the topic, I think we really need to consider that we approach things from a fairly free position. We have no signed contract with either VT, or anyone else. In a way, we’re like bees that are free to sample nectar from any flowers. Even if the plant is poisonous, we can still take a homeopathic dose that can serve a purpose. Yet, in the grand picture of things, it is not only what we can take from the wider World for our own development, but also to grow in consciousness about how the flowers are embedded in the World stream, in what ecosystem they belong, what juices they pump, etc. (because in the end, this is the Cosmic ‘physiology’ of humanity’s being, and we live within it).

As I contemplate the conversation here, it feels to me that Ashvin focuses more on our ability to extract the best value from each flower, while Federica asks more about the place of the VT flower in the overall picture.

There’s nothing problematic in the fact that VT focused on Soul Wisdom, per se. After all, everyone should work with the gifts and strengths that they possess. Where things become concerning, however, is the whole ‘Catholic project’. To be honest, I’m not familiar enough with VT’s work to say to what extent this was explicated by him, and to what extent it is Rodriel’s understanding, but the idea that the continuation of the Anthroposophical impulse is to go through the RCC is problematic (and not in the least because of some superficial antipathy toward the Church). This feels dissonant on so many levels. First of all, it goes against our basic sense of the Christ-Michael impulse, which makes us a free spiritual being, growing into the depth of reality and directly breathing the Spirit. I don’t know about you, but to me it feels kinda claustrophobic if every insight, every imagination, should immediately be annexed with something like “OK, now let’s see how we can fit this to the wineskins of the RCC (or any other such amniotic sac).” It feels completely backwards, no matter how I look at it. It’s as if the spirit voluntarily tries to fit itself back in a shell. Every genuine evolutionary impulse gushes forward. It is up to the old forms to chase that impulse, if they are willing to adapt. It’s completely backwards if we imagine that the new impulse should be retrofitted into the existing forms. This has never been the case. Even Theosophy, which is so much closer to many of the messages of SS, could not change its wineskin to take in the Christ. Imagine what it would be if Steiner had said that the Christ is a matter of private concern and decided to quietly keep lecturing in the Theosophical society with the nebulous hope that some day, maybe, members will be ripe enough to encounter the Sun-being. But this is not how things work. Instead, the Christ-Michael impulse had to break free and grow unhindered. It is up to other forms to chase and adapt.

Now, if we put aside any sympathies, antipathies, and attachments, I would have no choice but to say that this ‘Catholic project’ serves only to arrest the Christ-Michael impulse, claim authority over it, and administer it to the souls in well-calculated ritual forms and dosages. In other words, the Nicene creed is maintained: man remains body and soul. Because of the course of time, it is natural that human beings develop a certain appetite for the supersensible. Providing certain guidelines for a more expanded soul experience can satisfy this appetite, yet the spiritual matters remain proxied by the Church being.

I’m expressing the above as a harsher view, and I’m open to being corrected, but at this point, it is difficult to see it otherwise. Our conversations with Rodriel did not help that much either. In the end, there’s no clear vision of how this project will work out (if we take it optimistically and imagine that it should indeed lead man to the Spirit). Instead, we’re only left with a kind of hope that things will somehow work out, given enough time. To me, this is an extremely paralyzing position to assume. But worst of all, if we embrace this position, we’re led to the feeling that Steiner indeed screamed out a bunch of occult voicings, just to sharpen our ears, so to speak, while the essence, the true continuation of the Christ-Michael impulse, is to be further developed in the ‘Catholic project’. But to me, this is a plain untruth.

I emphasize: it would be one thing to dedicate one’s life to furthering the development of the RCC, but to claim that this is the path of human evolution, is truly anti-Christ-Michaelic. The essence of the Michael impulse is spiritual science – it’s human thinking growing into Cosmic Thinking (Cosmic Imaginative Language), which by its very essence implies living in, breathing, and expressing true Spirit Wisdom.

Now, it can be objected that VT’s project doesn’t prevent one from growing into the spiritual. But it is precisely here that we must be very lucidly aware that we can only be comfortable with this fact because we draw nectar from other flowers. The question is, what would it mean for a bee if its full diet consists of the Catholic project nectar? And notice that if the bee starts with this nectar, it will likely not feel a need to go back to the original SS nectar, because it is led to believe that the ‘new’ nectar supersedes the old one (the slag has been cast off) and carries the purified essence.

So in the grand picture, as free bees, we can surely extract in homeopathic doses what is valuable from VT’s work, but we can’t close our eyes that something indeed happened with the transition into the Catholic period. To appreciate this, we need to consider not only the words that have precipitated, but also the supersensible life – what kinds of juices were animating VT’s blossom? This is not a topic of intellectual dichotomies but for actual supersensible investigation. As said, I’m open to being shown otherwise, but at this time, I cannot experience the Catholic project (if taken as the path) in any other way than going into an anti-Christ-Michaelic direction. Maybe not diametrically ‘anti’, but essentially, even delaying that impulse is detrimental.

[Federica]

All of what you say above makes sense. Except, when we get to the 3rd paragraph, you begin describing an 'ideal' that neither Tomberg nor I would pursue. Just as little did I "aim to undo the collapsed experiences perceived in embodied life, and meditate away the condensations" or to "deny the wavefunction's collapse", do I aim toward some ideal of "concealing the fact of reincarnation from the majority". These are all gross caricatures. I tried to clarify, in this post, the kind of phenomenological exploration I am actually interested in, and what I was actually doing with that 'meager' quote of Steiner. I can only hope you can remain open to taking all of my indications seriously, as steps of a holistic 'dance routine' that hangs together, rather than choosing which ones to focus on and which ones to ignore or attribute to some subsequent attempt at shifting the meaning.

Sure, I mostly take these things very seriously. We can have a closer, phenomenological look. Perhaps what I said is all gross, but let's see, from your previous post:

We have discussed before some aspects of the more conservative soul mood and approach. For example, we have spoken of how we are often tempted to convey spiritual insights to others immediately upon receiving them, without properly considering the wider living context through which those insights were gained. We forget the dynamic process that we have lived through to attain that deeper orientation, and simply take it for granted that others will experience the same orientation through our words and images. We don't consider that these words and images, devoid of that wider living context, could even be counterproductive to the other soul's orientation. We can clearly sense such a soul mood and approach at work in the quote below, for example:

The conclusion which asserts itself from all that we have said above concerning the sphere of mirages is that practical esotericism demands at least the same prudence as exact science, but the prudence that it demands is of a nature that is not only intellectual but also, and above all, moral. In fact, it encompasses the whole human being with his faculties of reasoning, imagination and will. It is therefore a matter of being prudent. For this reason the rule of every serious esotericist should be to be silent—often for a length of years—concerning every new illumination or inspiration that he has, so as to give it the necessary time to mature, i.e. to acquire that certainty which results from its accordance with moral consciousness, moral logic, the totality of spiritual and ordinary personal experience—and that of friends and spiritual guides of the past and present—as also with divine revelation, whose eternal dogmas are guiding constellations in the intellectual and moral heaven. And it will be only after having arrived at such an accordance that a personal illumination or inspiration can be considered communicable and presentable.

The main point I am trying to convey is that we need to delve a level deeper than weighing the "concealment or spreading of esoteric knowledge" on our mental scale and judging which one prevails over the other. From my perspective, both Steiner and Tomberg's discussion of these intimate facts completely transcends such a mental weighing of contents. Instead, by imaginatively contemplating the possible approaches to disseminating occult knowledge, we become more sensitive to how such knowledge influences our soul life at a deeper scale.

I'll tell you what doesn't square in this analysis. As said before, we agree that right judgement, patience, discernment, humility, and empathy are all needed in order to decide when it's appropriate to spread spiritual scientific ideas and when it's not, in every specific circumstance. Steiner had this in mind continually: Sometimes, he mentioned that. He waited years before addressing certain subjects, or applications. Cleric's got a new essay series in mind and is also waiting for the right conditions before publishing it. No question, all this is appropriate. However, the point is, the conservative mood in VT's quote, and in general, goes well beyond right judgement. And this excessive conservatism - as I want to call it - is precisely what makes it non-complementary to Spiritual Science. How does Tombergs mood overshoot the mark of reasonable right judgment, phenomenologically?

Let's imagine we apply the recommended restraint to our own activity. We wait "for years" before sharing insights, awaiting confirmation from the side of the "eternal dogmas", and all else that needs to align. So imagine, you have an essay ready, and now you wait for years, because your most important requirement is to avoid every least chance that your ideas may be the slightest counterproductive, in some way. This is, my friend, a detrimental mood, in my phenomenology. This forces you to betray the essence of the fundamental capacities cultivated in the fourth and fifth of Steiners 6 exercises: positivity, and trust. You are asked to abdicate initiative, in the name of a vague conservatism, under the justification that someone, somewhere could find the spreading counterproductive. Do you think Steiner's spiritual science reflected such mood of excessive conservatism when he decided to spread the ideas "the heart is not a pump", "the nerves are all sensory", or "Mars is viscous"?

How many times did Steiner emphasize the importance of taking action (inwardly and outwardly) trusting that, even if with errors, what counts is the drive, the feeling, and the positive intent? And that as long as those are the underlying energies, possible errors will be rectified? And what about the co-responsibility of others? Should we not grant them the potential to elevate themselves above their present mind state, as the best and most effective way to facilitate just that elevation, as opposed to remaining in restraint, just in case the other side turns out to be less than enough?

Surely, VT never put himself in the condition of making any such mistakes that RS made. But who, even through the mistakes, has given us the example, the rich context, and the inexhaustible fuel to step into action and transform human consciousness here and now? The deeper scale of these attitudes to the spreading of previously occult knowledge, is that they can't be fully reconciled in our inmost activity - when considered phenomenologically. Spiritual Science requires that we join an ideal of becoming doers - inwardly and outwardly - but VT has unfortunately not been in a mood for that, in his trajectory.

What can be complementary with spiritual science, i.e., the pursuit of higher organs of perception and the communications of the relations discerned through them, is the Wisdom of the soul that becomes conscious of its soul-level constraints and factors these into its higher striving for spiritual knowledge. Not only is it complementary, but it becomes entirely necessary if we don't want to remain with abstract mental tokens about "reincarnation", mock-up versions that only prepare us to experience the 'real deal' in some future time, but to begin perceiving something of its reality that expresses through the rhythms of our whole human experience, as individuals and collectives. What it means to be active in pursuing such knowledge is quite the opposite of what it means to be active in pursuing intellectual frameworks about spiritual realities. In fact, great durations of quiet contemplation, disciplined training, dwelling on inner experiences, silence of opinions, prayerful submission and surrender, and so on, are a critical ingredient of actively pursuing higher knowledge. It is an integral part of becoming responsible esotericists who are eventually in a position to productively contribute to the dissemination of such knowledge.
...
I hope you can appreciate how this is a second-order level of discussion, Federica, and perhaps it's not the one that you are interested in having, but it's the only one that I have been having across these threads. It is concerned with the practical realities of spiritual life, of the soul that wants to concretely grow into deeper scales of its existence. This soul has little trouble recognizing what both Steiner and Tomberg were up to in their artistic treatments of intuitive realities and how their detailed explorations of those realities can be complementary for its practical striving to not only know facts of spiritual science, but to live those facts. One only needs to contemplate the fact that MoT was written, let alone many other books and lectures given, to see that Tomberg took utmost responsibility for igniting a spark in others through external deeds, just as Steiner did.

Sure, soul wisdom is necessary, there's no question about that. And Tomberg's work can enrich this wisdom with exercises and reflections. I do appreciate the second-order of discussion. And precisely from this second-order perspective the main question here is about the risks of following VT in a mood of restraint, almost inner seclusion (like in an amniotic sac?) which is distinctly anti-spiritual scientific. Ultimately it's like stated in my current signature: we need to take that mood of initiative, positivity, and trust, towards ourselves, and others as well. The way to ascend from Soul to Spirit is to maintain in sight the ideal of leaving aside the personal perspective and caring for the collective from within the aperture of our individual self. You may call it freedom, if you prefer.

[AshvinP]

So in the grand picture, as free bees, we can surely extract in homeopathic doses what is valuable from VT’s work, but we can’t close our eyes that something indeed happened with the transition into the Catholic period. To appreciate this, we need to consider not only the words that have precipitated, but also the supersensible life – what kinds of juices were animating VT’s blossom? This is not a topic of intellectual dichotomies but for actual supersensible investigation. As said, I’m open to being shown otherwise, but at this time, I cannot experience the Catholic project (if taken as the path) in any other way than going into an anti-Christ-Michaelic direction. Maybe not diametrically ‘anti’, but essentially, even delaying that impulse is detrimental.

Thank you, Cleric, for helping this dance move in a helpful direction.

As I hope is clear from my comments to Rodriel throughout this entire thread, I share all of these same concerns about the Catholic project, i.e., the bees proxying all of their nectar from this one source. I don't see that as a resurrected form of the Anthroposophical impulse at all. Therefore, in the big picture, I fail to see this 'Catholic project' as a helpful way forward for most souls. I am also unsure about the extent to which Tomberg would share Rodriel's view in that particular respect, since in his concrete actions, he was clearly expressing and emulating a path of spiritual investigation that the Church would only fail to reject because it fails to understand what he is actually implying, similar to how Eugene would fail to reject higher cognitive development until we made it explicit enough what it entails and how what it entails clashes with his inner stance toward spiritual reality.

It might help if we focus on some concrete examples of what VT expressed from his Catholic period to evaluate the supersensible juices that were animating that blossom. From my contemplation, I have discerned him speaking quite imaginatively about the higher stages of cognition. And I know that his meditative images and reasoning can help one live into these higher states of aggregation, not much unlike those crafted through Steiner. They are surely unique in their style and expression, emphasizing a more conservative soul mood when venturing into occult science, and do not cover as much phenomenal dynamics as the latter. Nevertheless, I can feel that they serve very similar inner functions for stimulating an interest and enthusiasm for independent higher development, which neither ignores 'the Tradition' nor makes the soul dependent on it.

And if we are going to evaluate Tomberg's juices by the qualities of those who invoke his name within the Catholic project, then we would have to do the same for Steiner and the Anthroposophical Society, where souls have become more or less equally dependent on the proxied mental tokens of Saturn, Sun, Moon, etc. and various ritualistic practices when recited or performed in a mostly mechanical way without deeper inner understanding, as is usually the case. In this case, the souls began proxying their spiritual knowledge from a particular palette of mental tokens and rituals, to the exclusion of any other potential source of extracting Wisdom. I have seen this unfold in real-time discussions with Anthroposophers and how such souls would reject any interest in our phenomenological essays, for example, precisely because they do not seem to fit into the familiar molds of esoteric science that they have become dependent on for inner orientation. I hope we agree that it would be unfruitful to make such an evaluation in either case.

(interestingly, Rodriel is one of the few souls interested in and familiar with Anthroposophy who has also been interested in contemplating my essays, for whatever that implies)