Page 7 of 12

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:12 pm
by Rodriel Gabrez
AshvinP wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 6:06 am Cleric raised a good point above when he discussed the inevitable split within institutions like the RCC, assuming certain aspects are increasingly Johnified. That is indeed what we see across all cultural institutions today, from our immediate family relations to nations, religious organizations, and so on. To the extent certain members have incorporated a tendency to live consciously along the 'phase spaces' of inner life, the other members meet them with increasing suspicion and disdain. I think we have seen that on this forum as well. It's like few souls wants to quite admit that other souls who communicate with them may be interacting directly with the spiritual beings-curvatures that they contemplate indirectly via the mediation of scaled mental images and preferred philosophers, scientists, theologians, religious figures, etc. Instead, the former are imagined to simply be abstractly theorizing about such spiritual relations, delusional, deceived by demonic beings, and so on. It's hard to imagine how such a splitting tendency would not also manifest itself in the RCC as the streams begin to overlap more.

Do you see that as a major short-term risk in the RCC? Perhaps you have even experienced this to some extent when trying to subtly point toward esoteric dimensions to members of yoir congregation?
I've experienced the pushback you mention only very minimally, largely because I've undertaken to be one of Tomberg's "unknown friends" and follow his example. Meaning, I approach the communication of the depth dimension situationally, with the individual person very much in mind. This means that I am very rarely in situations where the explicit language of spiritual science is used. Instead I make an effort to convey esoteric realities in language that immediately resonates with the person or people I'm speaking with. This of course means that progress is mostly subtle. But it's progress nonetheless. "Hitting people over the head" with the deepest, most intricate esoteric facts is usually a surefire way to get them to reject you outright. All that said, I don't believe that one stands to move the needle very much with large audiences. Small, intimate groups and even one-on-one friendships (including online ones, however unideal this might be) are what I have found to be the most promising avenues for esoteric development with others. I've found that with intellectual and mystically oriented Catholics, quite a bit of progress can be made simply by revealing the depths already present within the tradition, which can be expanded considerably even within the bounds of dogma. MoT is an excellent guide for this. For example, I've recently been in conversation with an incredibly talented theology student who is, in characteristic fashion, completely constrained within the intellectual soul. I've been able to make some good progress with him by first showing that I can tango relatively well in his language and providing various doors to the depth dimension using that language.

Another thing I try to do, even when speaking to Anthroposophists, is to limit my communication of the esoteric to things I am able to personally corroborate. Though I do sometimes forget to do this, I make an effort to make clear where I am merely paraphrasing Steiner vs where I am speaking from a place of personal certainty. I'm no great seer, so much of what Steiner reports is still unverified content from my personal standpoint. I have great reason to find Steiner a most trustworthy resource, of course, and have found - like he often said - that merely absorbing spiritual science with an unprejudiced attitude yields profound results. I believe, however, that we are a rare breed who are predisposed toward taking this up. So what I have been able to make my own (what I've been able to weave into my organization via the I), I now actively seek ways of communicating that are more likely to get through to people.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:38 pm
by Rodriel Gabrez
Güney27 wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 12:37 pm Rodriel,

How do you think the Catholic conception of Christ and the Incarnation can be reconciled with the anthroposophical conception? The Church radically rejects the idea that there were two Jesus children or that the Incarnation was only complete after the baptism, among other things.
This would essentially declare the Church’s interpretation as entirely false.

The Church’s teachings (Catechism and Dogmatics) cannot integrate these elements without completely abandoning its doctrine. I also cannot imagine that this will happen. Rudolf Steiner and Valentin tomberg are likely considered as heretics by most Catholics. Of course, there are theologians who are more open, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar. What would happen if a cardinal or a pope began publicly discussing the idea of two Jesus children or other antroposoohical elements of Steiners christology?
This is a key question and one Ashvin and I have spent some time discussing elsewhere. It is for me really the one gap where I haven't been able to find a viable bridge. The most halting issue for me is that I have little incentive to build the bridge, in that the fact of the two Jesus children is not something I have been able to independently verify. I do wonder how many spiritual scientists have in fact achieved personally certainty of the two Jesus children. For me it's at best a logically sound lynchpin in Steiner's entire conception.

Assuming the fact of the two Jesus children to be true, the best answer I've been able to come up with refers back to what I've been saying about the Church's purview being eternal rather than temporary truth. It is eternally true that Christ Jesus, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, born of the Virgin, sits at the right hand of God, and that the Blessed Virgin, having ascended bodily into heaven, is the Queen of Heaven, reigning over the hierarchies, etc. Both the traditional Church and Steiner stress the crucial importance of this eternal reality being made flesh in a distinct, unique historical event. But the Church imprints the broader details of the eternal reality onto that event in a manner befitting the intellectual soul. This imprint has obscured the precise details of the historical reality, which can only be recovered through higher modes of consciousness. Again, assuming the two Jesus children is a historical fact, more and more people will discover it clairvoyantly. The Church will continue to map the eternal reality onto the historical event for providential reasons, and perhaps at some point there will be a shift. But I don't see any path forward in the near future for a pope, carinal, bishop, or even priest to openly discuss this. It would do irrevocable damage.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:47 pm
by AshvinP
Federica wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 3:54 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:47 pm The way you describe the inward effect of the sacraments and liturgy above sounds to me like what becomes possible only after the soul has expanded the 'boundaries' of its imaginative cube through a phenomenological path (which is surely cognitive and moral, simultaneously and synonymously).

Ashvin, the bold is true in the absolute, but in the context of souls called to walk a spiritual path in our day, this is not how things stand. To say it with Steiner, “Sin, for the man of modern time, lives in a world of abstract being. It is a mere transgression, a moral concept which he cannot really connect with the necessities or laws of Nature” or, as I wrote above: “man's path to salvation cannot be moral before it is cognitive”. Nobody begins a phenomenological path today with the realization of the simultaneity you speak of, or, at the very least, there is a very majoritarian tendency to be drawn to phenomenology through cognition, without an understanding of the unitary nature of reality.
It has to be like that, and that's precisely the context that was in question.

Federica,

I think it is true even in the initial stages of cognitive development via phenomenological exploration. The soul simply cannot accomodate and refine new intuitions of its supersensible structure, even beginning with its imaginative life, if it does not somewhat turn its will toward the Divine and resist-renounce many selfish TFW habits that were ingrained through its instinctive develolment. The unitary nature of natural and moral reality only becomes concrete through the soul's moral imagination, a term which itself suggests the unified congitive-moral qualities of modern initiatic striving.

Here is a relevant quote from Steiner on PoF:

Something that has no possibility of being intellectual is the human will as I tried to characterize it in its relationship to the impulse of love in my book, The Philosophy of Freedom. Human will comes to expression in the subconscious reality of drives or hungers that take the form of a variety of egotistical urges, of social or political ambitions. Everything in this category remains unconscious or subconscious. But when the will is raised to a really conscious level, when what the will impulses otherwise sleep through, or at best just dream through, is lifted into the sphere of consciousness, there is no further possibility of conceiving it materialistically. In our time will is not understood at all, as is apparent to anyone of genuine spiritual insight into a certain symptom of the period. The symptom I refer to is the fact that those who consider themselves the brightest spirits of the age can even raise the question in the way they actually do as to whether there is any such thing as freedom.
...
Man now had to be guided to a rediscovery of his true being. I made an attempt to do this in my Philosophy of Freedom. Such was the historical setting of the problem that confronted me as I felt prompted to write The Philosophy of Freedom. This “most highly developed animal” in which man is caught cannot be free, nor yet that thought-up human being that is just an idea, with its trappings of “in-itselfness,” “out-of-itselfness,” “for-itselfness,” for that is just a construct of logical necessity. Neither one is free. The only free man is the real human being holding the balance between external material fact and ideas that pierce through to the reality of the spirit. That is why the attempt is made in The Philosophy of Freedom to show that moral life is based on the inner experience of morality, called by me moral fantasy, rather than on abstract principles, that it is based on the capacity of the individual as such to draw on intuition.... Detouring thus through moral philosophy, one finds that one has reached the realm of the spirit, and that would perhaps be a way for present-day humanity to achieve understanding of the spiritual world, to realize something that is really not so hard to grasp, namely, that unless morality is conceived to belong to a supersensible, spiritual realm, it has absolutely nothing to stand on.

And another one that expresses it even more directly:

The forces of Ahriman, which would otherwise have worked on the earth in what had fallen away from the gods, were thus countered by the Christ force, placed on earth to work there by divine decision. Christ did not need to become free, for He is a god and remains divine even though He has experienced death. He takes on nothing of earth's nature; He lives within earth's being as a god. As a consequence of this, man now has the possibility of putting everything he possesses on freedom's side of the scale, of pursuing a path without reservation individualistic, for moral fantasy is to be found only in the individual. That is why my Philosophy of Freedom has been called a philosophy of individualism in the most extreme sense. It had to be such because it is also the most Christian of philosophies. So one side of the scale had to receive the full weight of what knowledge of outer nature has to offer, an element accessible to the spiritual in pure, free thinking only. That thinking can still be applied in the realm of purely technical science. On the other side of the scale we must put a true understanding of the Christ, a true understanding of the Mystery of Golgotha.

So it was a matter of course that I should try to write The Philosophy of Freedom to the best of my ability; obviously, one can't do a perfect job the first time around. My books, Mysticism and Modern Thought and Christianity as Mystical Fact, called attention on the other hand to the Mystery of Golgotha. The two halves were simply meant to be part of one whole. But people who look at things externally and see a contradiction between the two, picture me proceeding by putting weights on one side of the scale and meat on the other, and they say, “What is this? Put everything on the same side where it belongs!” So they try to do that, but you can't balance things that way. That is how the critics of our time want it done, however.... If the soul of modern man is to relate rightly to the world's ongoing evolution, it must feel a strong impulse to freedom on the one hand, to an inner experience of the Mystery of Golgotha on the other.... My Philosophy of Freedom presupposes only the kind of natural scientific thinking that one would also apply to understanding a steam engine. But to understand a steam engine one has to strip off everything one is as a human being except that very last possession, one's pure thinking. We have to develop that within ourselves and then apply it to what is outside us. But it is the very same element that lives in the surrounding world of objects. So, on the one hand, we can take our stand entirely on freedom, but we have to balance this on the other side by taking our stand on the foundation of the fact of Christ.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 8:56 pm
by Federica
AshvinP wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:47 pm
Federica wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 3:54 pm
AshvinP wrote: Wed Aug 20, 2025 6:47 pm The way you describe the inward effect of the sacraments and liturgy above sounds to me like what becomes possible only after the soul has expanded the 'boundaries' of its imaginative cube through a phenomenological path (which is surely cognitive and moral, simultaneously and synonymously).

Ashvin, the bold is true in the absolute, but in the context of souls called to walk a spiritual path in our day, this is not how things stand. To say it with Steiner, “Sin, for the man of modern time, lives in a world of abstract being. It is a mere transgression, a moral concept which he cannot really connect with the necessities or laws of Nature” or, as I wrote above: “man's path to salvation cannot be moral before it is cognitive”. Nobody begins a phenomenological path today with the realization of the simultaneity you speak of, or, at the very least, there is a very majoritarian tendency to be drawn to phenomenology through cognition, without an understanding of the unitary nature of reality.
It has to be like that, and that's precisely the context that was in question.

Federica,

I think it is true even in the initial stages of cognitive development via phenomenological exploration. The soul simply cannot accomodate and refine new intuitions of its supersensible structure, even beginning with its imaginative life, if it does not somewhat turn its will toward the Divine and resist-renounce many selfish TFW habits that were ingrained through its instinctive develolment. The unitary nature of natural and moral reality only becomes concrete through the soul's moral imagination, a term which itself suggests the unified congitive-moral qualities of modern initiatic striving.

Here is a relevant quote from Steiner on PoF:

My note was not an invitation to turn on your quote automaton function and carry out your guiding duty, Ashvin. You have a keen ability to state things as if I had previously opposed them. But, as I have mentioned before, I never questioned self-education to resist selfish habits. This must indeed come as a prerequisite - as I have mentioned before. Still, even under such self-education, the objectivity of the moral order does not immediately appear to consciousness. This is not only in line with the organization of most human beings today, but also my direct experience, and no crude truckloading of quoted words that don’t apply will ever be able to falsify that.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:00 pm
by Güney27
Rodriel Gabrez wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:38 pm
Güney27 wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 12:37 pm Rodriel,

How do you think the Catholic conception of Christ and the Incarnation can be reconciled with the anthroposophical conception? The Church radically rejects the idea that there were two Jesus children or that the Incarnation was only complete after the baptism, among other things.
This would essentially declare the Church’s interpretation as entirely false.

The Church’s teachings (Catechism and Dogmatics) cannot integrate these elements without completely abandoning its doctrine. I also cannot imagine that this will happen. Rudolf Steiner and Valentin tomberg are likely considered as heretics by most Catholics. Of course, there are theologians who are more open, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar. What would happen if a cardinal or a pope began publicly discussing the idea of two Jesus children or other antroposoohical elements of Steiners christology?
This is a key question and one Ashvin and I have spent some time discussing elsewhere. It is for me really the one gap where I haven't been able to find a viable bridge. The most halting issue for me is that I have little incentive to build the bridge, in that the fact of the two Jesus children is not something I have been able to independently verify. I do wonder how many spiritual scientists have in fact achieved personally certainty of the two Jesus children. For me it's at best a logically sound lynchpin in Steiner's entire conception.

Assuming the fact of the two Jesus children to be true, the best answer I've been able to come up with refers back to what I've been saying about the Church's purview being eternal rather than temporary truth. It is eternally true that Christ Jesus, the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, born of the Virgin, sits at the right hand of God, and that the Blessed Virgin, having ascended bodily into heaven, is the Queen of Heaven, reigning over the hierarchies, etc. Both the traditional Church and Steiner stress the crucial importance of this eternal reality being made flesh in a distinct, unique historical event. But the Church imprints the broader details of the eternal reality onto that event in a manner befitting the intellectual soul. This imprint has obscured the precise details of the historical reality, which can only be recovered through higher modes of consciousness. Again, assuming the two Jesus children is a historical fact, more and more people will discover it clairvoyantly. The Church will continue to map the eternal reality onto the historical event for providential reasons, and perhaps at some point there will be a shift. But I don't see any path forward in the near future for a pope, carinal, bishop, or even priest to openly discuss this. It would do irrevocable damage.
If one makes only the infinitely true the teaching of dogmatics, wouldn’t the Church then need to know about occult realities and filter them at its highest ranks? Or does this happen somewhat passively, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is at work?

More importantly, however, Steiner has a different understanding of Christ than the Church. It seems to me that for Steiner, Christ is the highest "solar being" and not the highest being. It’s possible that I’ve misunderstood Steiner here.
Furthermore, for Steiner, Christ and Jesus are not a unity, but rather an initiated personality, with Christ incarnating into this individual.

Besides Tomberg, are there other Catholic hermeticists or mystics you can recommend? I am somewhat familiar with Romano Guardini, Balthasar, and Karl Rahner, but I don’t find them particularly helpful.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:12 pm
by AshvinP
Federica wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 8:56 pm
AshvinP wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:47 pm
Federica wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 3:54 pm


Ashvin, the bold is true in the absolute, but in the context of souls called to walk a spiritual path in our day, this is not how things stand. To say it with Steiner, “Sin, for the man of modern time, lives in a world of abstract being. It is a mere transgression, a moral concept which he cannot really connect with the necessities or laws of Nature” or, as I wrote above: “man's path to salvation cannot be moral before it is cognitive”. Nobody begins a phenomenological path today with the realization of the simultaneity you speak of, or, at the very least, there is a very majoritarian tendency to be drawn to phenomenology through cognition, without an understanding of the unitary nature of reality.
It has to be like that, and that's precisely the context that was in question.

Federica,

I think it is true even in the initial stages of cognitive development via phenomenological exploration. The soul simply cannot accomodate and refine new intuitions of its supersensible structure, even beginning with its imaginative life, if it does not somewhat turn its will toward the Divine and resist-renounce many selfish TFW habits that were ingrained through its instinctive develolment. The unitary nature of natural and moral reality only becomes concrete through the soul's moral imagination, a term which itself suggests the unified congitive-moral qualities of modern initiatic striving.

Here is a relevant quote from Steiner on PoF:

My note was not an invitation to turn on your quote automaton function and carry out your guiding duty, Ashvin. You have a keen ability to state things as if I had previously opposed them. But, as I have mentioned before, I never questioned self-education to resist selfish habits. This must indeed come as a prerequisite - as I have mentioned before. Still, even under such self-education, the objectivity of the moral order does not immediately appear to consciousness. This is not only in line with the organization of most human beings today, but also my direct experience, and no crude truckloading of quoted words that don’t apply will ever be able to falsify that.

Perhaps it doesn't "immediately appear to consciousness", and perhaps you still flow with discursively argumentative and antipathetic modes of thinking and expression on certain topics like these, precisely because you refuse to contemplate the immanent overlap between the "objectivity of the moral order" and the subjective experience of pure thinking. That overlap is what Steiner expresses clearly in many such quotes, as the foundation of PoF and spiritual science, and your note about 'how things stand' is simply turning your current personal limitation on the phenomenological path into some universal rule about what 'man's path to salvation' can or cannot be, a thinking habit which ironically blocks the experience of a moral world order immanently present in pure thinking and thus serves to confirm its own content. In other words, the 'self-education' to resist selfish habits' is the objective moral world order that one is not allowing oneself to experience.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:17 pm
by Cleric
Rodriel Gabrez wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 1:38 am Please don't take the brevity of this response as more than a sign of just how closely I am tracking with you. You say things very well - it's hard to add to it! Let me clarify though: I don't at all mean to insinuate that the Petrine institution will not also undergo a dramatic change, especially over the timescales you're considering. I do agree that there is at least a roughly analogous process in Peter-->John as in Law-->Gospel. This pattern is found in the mystical writings of St. Maximus the Confessor, for instance, where he discusses the progression of the "6th to the 7th to the 8th days of creation," describing 6-->7 as Law-->Gospel and 7-->8 as Gospel-->eschaton. Gospel-->eschaton is in a sense equivalent to the transition of Peter to John, the telos of which is the "Johnification" of the institution: the Ecclesia Catholica born out of the RCC. You see this as more of an immediate shedding of a husk situation, whereas I see it as a gradual interior transformation, with the very earth itself becoming the husk. In any case, like Ashvin said above, it seems we are all pretty closely tracking with each other. We just have different ideas and convictions about the precise contours of the future and the pathways to get there. These are admittedly still major differences, but the common ground is significant.
As the cliché goes, ‘the devil is in the details,’ and here we must take this seriously. ‘Gradual’ must be grasped in the correct way. Physicalists today still seek the solution to the abiogenetic origin of life. They believe they pretty much have the general geometry of the solution in the sack and only need to gradually fill in the missing pieces. In the physicalist's defense, it is not easy to be conscious of this implicit geometry of consciousness (fish not aware of the water). When one operates as a brain-bound intellectual being, the whole reality is intuited through this prism. One needs to have experienced at least one more instance of inner space geometry in order to understand this implicitness.

Those who have some feeling of being a soul (and not only a body) have a slight advantage, although in our age this feeling is often so dim that it barely makes a real difference. When the feeling is more pronounced, however, the experience of be-ing is indeed different. In the simplest terms, the physicalist feels skin- and brain-bound. If imaginative activity stretches beyond the bodily volume, one quickly suffixes it with something like “but this is simply an illusion created by the brain.” Those who genuinely feel themselves as souls have more expanded consciousness. Alongside the pixels of inner bodily phenomena, they have at least some sense of being a soul-sphere interfacing with the bodily organs.

Now we need to challenge even this soul-bound experience. Let’s try to imagine the inner, first-person movies of existence of incarnated Christian souls, as superimposed. Earthly lives are so diverse that most sensations largely cancel out. Nevertheless, there are certain feeling and ideal patterns that are mostly in phase. If Christianity is grasped properly, these patterns transcend nation and race, thus they are not the work Folk Spirits (Archangels). Since they are sought as eternal truths, they also transcend the Spirits of the Epoch (Archai). Thus, these universal patterns (speaking of soul geometry) mostly lie in the domain of the Spirits of Form (SoF).

We can never understand these things by imagining some spiritual creature that somehow produces patterns in spiritual space. We need to feel that when we differentiate in meditation from our personal, national, and epochal sympathies and antipathies, and we feel as a pure soul in the light of the Christ, this common inner space geometry, this sense of what we are as a being, is mainly the shape of potential supported by SoFs. As an analogy, if we consider the human physical form, we have the Pentagram. We need to experience it from within. We need to feel the inner space that we sweep with our limbs and head. Then we can imagine this space thickening and containing all conceivable human forms along with the possible transformations that they can undergo.

We should conceive something similar also for our soul geometry. The first thing to note is that these forms of potential are themselves transforming in the course of evolution. These archetypal envelope-forms can be thought of as standing waves within the even more general ideal flow – the inner life of the Spirits of Motion (SoM). I’m sure that these things are quite clear to you, as you say:
Instead, showing the existing structure to be pregnant with the materials of its own further unfolding - with the enlivened thought life of the Spirits of Motion - is the way forward, and the extent to which reincarnation and karma will be realized in this transformation will be the extent to which individual souls come to experience these things inwardly.
Now, it is not hard to see that the present Christian life is dominated by the SoF. The soul feels itself first and foremost as a form. It feels that it has been created by God – created in exactly the way it feels itself to be, with unique gifts and weaknesses. But most importantly, it feels that the soul identity is fixed. If we take clay, we can split it into several bigger balls or a greater number of smaller ones. Once they are split, they become individual; they have concrete identities. This is something that is deeply implicit in the sense of being a soul. We feel that God has created specifically our individual soul-shape, and this is completely unquestioned. This is simply what existence feels like. We should appreciate that the Bible is quiet on the question of the genesis of souls and their ultimate destiny. The common feeling is that we’re granted individual existence and we’ll eternally exist as a soul-being at this level of granularity (i.e, there’s no notion that at some point the clay may merge into greater lumps).

These are very difficult questions, and there are deep reasons why they are left out. It is worth noting that even Steiner hasn’t delved too much in that direction. The reason is that we can truly understand these things only once we overcome our personal existence. As long as we are haunted by the question, “But what will happen with me?” it is extremely difficult to speak of these things.

Anyway. The point is that the present Christian soul-geometry feels like a soul that needs to be polished around the edges (overcoming sin), but its general shape and identity are more or less fixed. There’s no notion of evolution in the doctrine. There’s polishing, but the Earthly sandbox is mostly formed as it is.

For Christianity to go further, the proper relations between the SoFs and the SoMs must be found. And here we reach a significant fact. In a certain sense, the SoFs that support the present common soul geometry are destined to be so-called backwards SoFs. There’s no vacuum in the Divine flow. Every niche is realized. This is not a condemnation, or anything like that. When there’s demand, there’ll be supply. These archetypal forms are destined to continue their existence simply because there are spiritual beings whose destiny unfolds within their envelope of potential.

Now, just as planets happen to have conjunctions, so there’s still a certain overlap between the SoFs that will become progressive and those that will continue on the descending path. In the future, the souls sheltered in the descending envelope of potential will have even greater difficulty conceiving of the needed change of inner geometry. Such changes will eventually be possible only in the period between death and rebirth. In other words, the incarnated souls will fight quite zealously to preserve the soul potential-envelope of their existence.

We are at an important stage of human history where an increasing number of souls have the inner flexibility to align with one or another constellation of SoFs. This doesn’t necessarily need to be developed as clear Inspirative consciousness. It’s simply that the “I” has emancipated from the sheaths of traditional secular and religious life, and at least in its ideal life, can understand the perspectives of the different spiritual outlooks. Not only as definitions, but by really feeling what it means to be a pagan, a muslim, a Christian, etc.

Such flexibility is needed if we are to find our proper place within the properly evolving SoFs. The reason is the following. If these SoFs could express it in words, it may sound something like this: “If we are to find our proper musical relations with the progressive SoMs, we need to work together with you. The Divine flow has it that we are not allowed to simply possess you within our standing-wave forms and carry you forward. You need to find the resonant relations through your own forces, in freedom. These forces are new. These are degrees of freedom that have hitherto been dormant. Until now, while incarnated, you were instinctively flowing within a certain constellation of SoFs, and that simply felt as what it is to exist as a soul. Now that you need to align through your own forces with one or another constellation, you are discovering new means to shift your deeper soul-shape. This is how the spiritual soul awakens. Just as awakening in the ego is at the same time to recognize yourself in thinking, so to awaken in the higher soul means to recognize yourself in still deeper forms of inner activity. To find the proper soul-shape, it is of critical importance to realize that you are not looking for the next fixed inner geometry but to find yourself as an archetypal standing-wave form of potential within the archetypal streams of the SoMs, with whom you need to align. Then, our common form will be the result of this mutual effort.”

As pretentious as this may sound, something like the video feedback meditation already works in that direction. If we really grasp it in the proper depth, we’ll realize that this meditation helps us feel placed differently within the World flow. In fact, the reason we constantly speak of this ‘World flow’ is precisely because we strive to feel our momentary state as the continuously metamorphosing World state, the Tetris-like concretization of potential. If experienced in the right way, this completely transforms our form-dominated (or space-dominated) sense of existence. We no longer feel like a fixed soul-shape that simply needs slight polishing here and there, and everything else is to be expected after death, but we awaken to the fact that our whole existence is only a transitional form in the flow of Cosmic metamorphosis – the Divine turning inside out through our first-person perspective.

If we succeed in experiencing ourselves in such a way in our thinking flow (this is where this sense of becoming can be experienced in the clearest way), the questions of Karma and Reincarnation are simply the most obvious features of such a flow-existence (just like you say above). The reason why these questions seem disturbing, doubtful, etc., is because while we are still form-dominated, we picture reincarnation as our form moving from Earthly space to the beyond-space and then back into a body. Such an image is indeed floating in the air, it’s simply a shaky fantasy, and it is normal that we may feel certain uneasiness about it. When, however, our inner perspective becomes flow-centric instead of form-centric, then we discover this completely factual experience of rhythmic metamorphoses. Then we understand reincarnation from the first-person perspective, and this makes all the difference. Now, reincarnation is no more miraculous than the fact that we experience the alternation of sleeping and waking consciousness. We simply discover that our first-person existence metamorphoses through such rhythms within rhythms.

Returning to the gradual transformation, we can easily realize that there’s no simple way in which the form-centric can be gradually polished until it becomes flow-centric. This doesn’t mean that there’s some vast chasm that we should cross on blind faith. In fact, we can bring them arbitrarily close to each other. It’s only that no matter how much we talk about concentration, at some point we simply need to stop talking and concentrate the force that we use for talking. No matter how refined, the description of the exercise won’t gradually transform into the performance of the exercise.

For this reason, as the ascending and descending SoFs keep getting apart, so will also souls that are sheltered within them. Of course, those on the flow-centric path have no problem understanding the inner life of those who are fixed within a specific form-centric geometry, but the latter simply lack that inner mobility. This is what will lead to the inevitable split. And we should be clear that those in the lines of the RCC, awakening to the flow-centric existence, will be the minority. As such, the majority are those that get to keep the RCC trademark. They’ll be the ones who believe they stay true to the millennia-old Testament of Christ, while the separatists will simply be seen as possessed by demons (this holds not only for the RCC but any form-centric religion).

Such a deeper understanding is vital. And hopefully, by the way it is spoken of, it is clear that it’s not about abstract schemas. Everything above refers to the completely living ways in which we experience our existence. If we do not understand these archetypal carrier flows of our existence, then that which is to happen, and is already happening, will be completely misunderstood. For example, we may think that it is a matter of talking the descending RCC out; we may believe that it’s a matter of providing them with more convincing arguments. This, however, will only outrage them more. Such things have already been experienced on a smaller scale here.

So to summarize, we need to comprehend (that which you have also very exactly pointed out) – our next step of development depends on finding the flow-centric mode of existence. This is at the same time the attunement of the SoFs and the SoMs within the human being into a musical ensemble. It is inevitable that SoFs that maintain the form-centric mode will preserve their Cosmic meditation, which, however, is already on a descending path. It goes increasingly out of tune with the ascending Divine flow. The corresponding religions sheltered in these SoFs will inevitably degenerate. If we contemplate the John impulse from within these descending communities, we’ll say, “It is not yet the time. The souls around me are not yet prepared to approach these things. For the time being, I’ll keep them a private concern.” On the next day, however, we’ll say, “Conditions have worsened. The transition needs to be delayed a bit more.” And in this way, with each new day, instead of getting closer to the transition, it becomes more and more remote. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t help the souls that are still form-bound. But we need to be aware that the full blossoming of the flow-centric human being will require new wineskins.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:03 pm
by Rodriel Gabrez
Güney27 wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:00 pm
If one makes only the infinitely true the teaching of dogmatics, wouldn’t the Church then need to know about occult realities and filter them at its highest ranks? Or does this happen somewhat passively, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which is at work?

More importantly, however, Steiner has a different understanding of Christ than the Church. It seems to me that for Steiner, Christ is the highest "solar being" and not the highest being. It’s possible that I’ve misunderstood Steiner here.
Furthermore, for Steiner, Christ and Jesus are not a unity, but rather an initiated personality, with Christ incarnating into this individual.

Besides Tomberg, are there other Catholic hermeticists or mystics you can recommend? I am somewhat familiar with Romano Guardini, Balthasar, and Karl Rahner, but I don’t find them particularly helpful.
I don't really know exactly the answer to your question, but I lean toward the position that no, the highest ranks of the Church wouldn't need to know these things. The situation is somewhat analogous to the fact that a painter can paint spectacular works without knowing color theory or how to grind pigments. The painter is still actively (not passively) engaged in the work, just at a different level than the color theorist. Are there painters who are also color theorist and pigment materials experts? Sure.

Steiner's christology is indeed very different from the Church's. I've spent a lot of time looking into this, and I have nowhere found - within Steiner's work - a comprehensive schematic laying out his Christology precisely from all dimensions. This isn't surprising, as this would have been largely contrary to his modus operandi. When one does take the time to put all the pieces together, one finds that Steiner viewed the Christ in a similar but not equivalent manner to the Gnostics, in that the Son's operations (and likewise those of the Father) were described as manifesting simultaneously and harmoniously at different levels through the dispensation of various hierarchies. In one place we find Steiner saying that Christ is the leader of the Spirits of Wisdom, where he is "the portal through which spiritual vision could be directed into infinite spheres to the spirits of the higher hierarchies" (CW 136). At other times we find him describing how the Christ worked at the level of the Spirits of Form, through Yahweh-Elohim. The I AM revelation to Moses on Sinai was simultaneously an identity statement between Christ and Yahweh and between the Son and the Father. In other places in Steiner's work, we find very clear presentations of Christ as the Son in his traditional description as Second Person of the Trinity (while admittedly Steiner hardly ever used traditional terminology like this, instead favoring to describe everything anew). These shadings and intricacies are completely covered over, ignored, and even denied in traditional theology, which is based on Aristotle's "hylomorphic" understanding of matter and form - the framework most suited to the SoF-dominated intellectual soul. As several people here have already pointed out, this framework does not admit of perspectives outside its own, thinking its own to be descriptive of "ontology." Neo-Thomists speak of the "architectonic principles of being." Such a perspective is a clear example of Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness." Although "ontology" itself is an intellectual soul concept, something like Whitehead's "process ontology" is a step in the right direction and one more amenable to Catholics. Anyway, I digress. Steiner's christology is complex and nuanced and operative from multiple perspectives at once.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2025 4:30 pm
by Rodriel Gabrez
Güney27 wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 9:00 pm
Besides Tomberg, are there other Catholic hermeticists or mystics you can recommend? I am somewhat familiar with Romano Guardini, Balthasar, and Karl Rahner, but I don’t find them particularly helpful.
I missed this part. Besides Tomberg, no - I do not know of any major figures whose work is as impactful. I would suggest the exact same list as you and agree that they are less helpful. There are a few Tombergian Substack accounts which publish some pretty decent stuff. This is a relatively new stream, half a century in the making. I believe an influence has already made its way into the Church, but it has been very subtle.

Re: Tomberg and Anthroposophy

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2025 1:53 am
by AshvinP
Rodriel Gabrez wrote: Sat Aug 23, 2025 7:12 pm For example, I've recently been in conversation with an incredibly talented theology student who is, in characteristic fashion, completely constrained within the intellectual soul. I've been able to make some good progress with him by first showing that I can tango relatively well in his language and providing various doors to the depth dimension using that language.

Thanks for sharing this, Rodriel. I am wondering if you can elaborate on this 'progress' a bit, as this has been a central theme of discussions on this forum lately, for example, in the "saving the materialists" thread. Generally we have tried to hone in on what the most appropriate 'bridge' looks like from the form-centric to the flow-centric soul life, i.e., what kind of specific affinities and resistances are at work when approaching an introspective cognitive path where the real-time flow of thinking is lifted out of the blind spot. I think we probably agree that 'progress' in this domain cannot be evaluated only at the content level, where chains of philosophical, scientific, or theological concepts seem to align with esoteric descriptions of reality. (many discissions on the Discord chat come to mind here). Instead, the soul needs to feel its concept chains, not as fully finished and unquestionable forms, but as fluidly embedded within a concrete intuitive landscape of meaning through which it is instinctively steering.