Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[Federica]

I'm sorry that I've come across as passive aggressive. I'm new here, and I realize I've entered a longstanding pre-established group with a challenging and possibly contentious topic. I try not to hide the fact that I have certain convictions, and so I state them plainly. But I don't intend at all to be forceful or aggressive. Thanks for letting me know that there's work to do on my part to get that to better come across. And thanks again to the whole group for engaging in this conversation, which is quite possibly the most in-depth one I've ever had on the topic in an online forum.

Perhaps I could speak to the cognitive vs moral development issue. Anthroposophical technique (which Steiner traces back to the Rosicrucians and even beyond) is somewhat unique in the context of initiation methods in that it bypasses the "zone of activity," if you will, that makes other methods incredibly dangerous. This is also the zone which stands between the cognitive and the moral. The cognitive and the moral are like poles which contain each other, whereas what stands in between them is orthogonal. This middle zone is that which is symbolized by the animal as the horizontal beam of the Cross, with the plant and human comprising the ends of the vertical beam. Steiner spoke extensively in his early lectures about the relationship between the plant and the human - how the human is the upturned plant which has lost his chaste innocence and needs to return to the plant again but on a higher level. This is precisely why Steiner's methods begin simultaneously with technique in the domain of etheric development and moral strengthening, which is a-technical. These two poles, being reflections of each other, operate simultaneously bringing together that which proceeds upward from personal effort and that which reaches downward as grace (if you'll allow the traditional term). This is the way of John, which, in contradistinction to the way of Peter, doesn't rely on remaining in a childlike state of innocence waiting for illumination to descend. In the John stream we have a legitimate path to do something much more active, to set an objective etheric current in motion which puts the individual on a path toward receiving objective spiritual content. Once the individual passes over into Imagination and accesses the animal zone of sympathy and antipathy, the danger returns and moral purification becomes paramount. Ostensibly the method itself will have provided a baseline of fortification against this danger.

So the method is at least a safe runway for development. Once one the plane achieves liftoff, however, the individual faces dangerous challenges. This is part of the reason why the way of Peter should spiral together with the way of John. What Tomberg masterfully achieves in MoT is a translation of Anthroposophical method into the language of Catholic tradition, showing the two to be complementary and reciprocally fructifying. Cognitive-moral development is couched in the framework of the purification element within the traditional triad of purification-illumination-union. One is being led into the way of John via the way of Peter (again, reenacting the crucial scene in John's gospel at the tomb).

Never mind Rodriel, I believe we are all exceedingly glad that you are here. By the way, it makes me think that someone who would bring an interesting viewpoint on the topic of this thread is Anthony. I guess I am not the only one who would be interested in what Anthony thinks about the stream of John, the stream of Peter, and the future of the RCC.

Thank you for elaborating on the cognitive-moral polarity and how the way of Peter can complement it, as a protection against the dangers of esoteric development. It makes sense. At the same time, the ensuing question would be: what about the risks of slowing down the pace of evolution in this way, by considering that the major part of humanity is unable to live up to the freedom now obtained through the painful development of the intellect, through materialism, and available? But this is basically the same question you are discussing with Cleric, so I look forward to seeing where you will take it from there.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Thank you, Rodriel! BTW, even though the posts may sound assertive, I want to emphasize that they are my meditations on the seeds that come from the conversation. As such, I also Thank you for giving me the opportunity to delve in new ways into certain questions. For example, the idea of 'form-centric' and 'flow-centric' is something that has been implied in the most varied ways here on the forum, but these exact wordings came only now, while I was seeking a way to express the way the sense of being differentiates. So, I hope I don't look like someone who merely wants to stamp his preconceived knowledge around. Instead, I discover quite new things in such exchanges.

Oh, not at all - it doesn't come across that you're merely asserting things you already know. Your responses reflect an active, ongoing engagement with the ideas in progress. I find myself nodding my head with you almost every step of the way in your descriptions. One can only ever benefit from hearing familiar ideas described from different angles. I always love when new terms like "flow-centric" and "form-centric" arise to assist us in communicating SS. So far this exploration has enriched but not changed my outlook on the RCC-Anthroposophy issue. But I'm no stick in the mud and am thoroughly considering all the points you're making.

[Federica]

Ah… thank you! Your last paragraph is pretty close to what I was saying. And the fact that "the connection may not be quite conscious at first, until we gain some distance on what it is we are actually doing", does mean that in our time, as a general rule for whatever esoteric path in the West, we are first attracted to the cognitive side, then we begin the work, and then we gain some distance, and moral consciousness on what we are actually doing. Which is why, in the post in question, I was arguing that Anthroposophy is better suited than the RCC to foster human evolution in the right way, since it suits a man who is drawn to begin with cognition, rather than with morality. That’s it. And I genuinely wonder (refraining from speculations) why both Rodriel and you suddenly became passive aggressive specifically on that point.

I think Rodriel helpfully addressed the above in his response. We can also consider why Steiner, via PoF et al., clearly begins with an intimate exploration of cognitive actvity and moral values at the same time. There is no sense in which such works suggest we can set aside the moral dimension of life while we first work on cognition. So as not to be called an automata again, I will simply paraphrase Steiner when saying that PoF was intended to bring a high degree of catharsis (purification of the astral), if oriented to properly (as a virtuoso relates to a conductor). What is catharsis except 'beginning with morality'? What we purify in this way is precisely cognition, so the latter can begin serving its unadultered function of elucidating our subtle supersensible structure and the latter's relation to our ordinary flow of experience. PoF (and thus Anthroposophy) is cognitive and moral striving simultaneously, clear and simple.

Yes, Ashvin, I agree with all you say. But not that I have previously opposed it (as it would seem to a whomever would only read your last post). So, what you say is clear and simple indeed.

Yet, how did we come to read PoF? How did it happen that the book fell into your hands? You remember? How did it happen that the first time you abandoned it? And what was the quest that made you change your mind, to give it a second try? What points did Cleric put forth that drove your enthusiasm to pick it up again? That's what I am saying, if it wasn't clear enough.

[Cleric]

Oh, not at all - it doesn't come across that you're merely asserting things you already know. Your responses reflect an active, ongoing engagement with the ideas in progress. I find myself nodding my head with you almost every step of the way in your descriptions. One can only ever benefit from hearing familiar ideas described from different angles. I always love when new terms like "flow-centric" and "form-centric" arise to assist us in communicating SS. So far this exploration has enriched but not changed my outlook on the RCC-Anthroposophy issue. But I'm no stick in the mud and am thoroughly considering all the points you're making.

As said, it's not that I know as some absolute fact how things are going to develop, but it's simply that given my intuition of the general World-development gathered so far (not only from a deeper perspective but including completely regular common sense), it's difficult to imagine a meaningfully consonant way in which the RCC (or any other existing religious institution) changes its ways in such a substantial way, and still keeping to call itself the same name. 'Difficult' in the sense that it's difficult to imagine, say, the Israelis and the Palestinians hugging tomorrow and saying it's all right. Not that I can rule it out in an absolute sense, but it simply doesn't ring in resonance with any intuition of how the world works at present.

I think an interesting vector for investigation is to consider, granted that the RCC is indeed going on a declining path (at least the general husk, not the progressive members who most certainly can be found there having their 'private concerns'), what would be most striking about it to you? Would that be only intuitively surprising, in the sense that it clashes with your present ideal understanding of the World flow (i.e, you'll look at the events and say "Hmm, this doesn't make sense)? Or there's also emotional involvement?

I'm not suggesting that you should answer here. But it might be an interesting topic for personal investigation (although it's unlikely that you haven't done this already). Is it that in the face of disinterested intuitive grasp of the World development, it simply seems as a logical necessity that the RCC should rise to universality? Or would there be some kind of feeling discomfort if this were not to be the case?

[Rodriel Gabrez]

As said, it's not that I know as some absolute fact how things are going to develop, but it's simply that given my intuition of the general World-development gathered so far (not only from a deeper perspective but including completely regular common sense), it's difficult to imagine a meaningfully consonant way in which the RCC (or any other existing religious institution) changes its ways in such a substantial way, and still keeping to call itself the same name. 'Difficult' in the sense that it's difficult to imagine, say, the Israelis and the Palestinians hugging tomorrow and saying it's all right. Not that I can rule it out in an absolute sense, but it simply doesn't ring in resonance with any intuition of how the world works at present.

I think an interesting vector for investigation is to consider, granted that the RCC is indeed going on a declining path (at least the general husk, not the progressive members who most certainly can be found there having their 'private concerns'), what would be most striking about it to you? Would that be only intuitively surprising, in the sense that it clashes with your present ideal understanding of the World flow (i.e, you'll look at the events and say "Hmm, this doesn't make sense)? Or there's also emotional involvement?

I'm not suggesting that you should answer here. But it might be an interesting topic for personal investigation (although it's unlikely that you haven't done this already). Is it that in the face of disinterested intuitive grasp of the World development, it simply seems as a logical necessity that the RCC should rise to universality? Or would there be some kind of feeling discomfort if this were not to be the case?

Yes, these are of course the questions I am constantly asking myself. One thing this path has not been is comfortable or convenient. Would it cause further discomfort to end up having been wrongly guided? Naturally. In that case, I'd like to think I'd be grateful to have been shown a truer way.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Stimulated by Cleric's latest post and the profound lesson he linked, it's interesting to contemplate the question, "why limit the bold, which is surely a wise (if not always attainable) practice, to only the facts of esoteric science? Why not also the facts of Biblical revelation? One could say that the latter is Divinely revealed, but actually we could say the same of the former, and actually of all insights reached through unprejudiced thinking. It is all possible because the Spirit is revealing the higher-order curvatures of potential as images along the scale spectrum. As long as such insights remain abstract, i.e. not tied to concrete experiences we have lived through, perhaps we should try to limit communication of them until we have grown deeper into their inner reality. That is not to say all communication of Biblical truths should cease, of course, but that we should be stimulated to inwardly develop such that we are justified to communicate them. Just something to contemplate. I imagine this would not sit too comfortably with most priests, and perhaps not even the Pope

I think the comparison holds in a sense, but it is a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Scripture is a tradition whereas Anthroposophy as presented by Steiner is largely the reports of a single individual. The tradition has had a longstanding formative influence on souls and is part of the world-as-given. One cannot but communicate using the pre-established building blocks of the given world. The same constraints apply to spiritual-scientific discussion, where we have to use spatiotemporal language to communicate supersensible realities. Now, there are of course those who take Steiner's word as a kind of world-as-given, and it is that phenomenon that all of us here recognize as being un-anthroposophical. It's un-anthroposophical precisely because Anthroposophy is supposed to serve a different function, namely to be an instrument of rejuvenation (Lazarus-John). However, that instrument only serves its function when it has something to rejuvenate (the given world, Peter). It ultimately boils down to the question of why the descent into matter was necessary. Although Golgotha was the inflection point after which an ascent back toward spirit became possible, we have to also remember that Christ Jesus descended through the subterranean spheres. The world-as-given moves in this subterranean direction simultaneously with the ascent. Peter dives down toward the center of the earth to recapture everything he can from this approach toward the abyss. The goal of achieving a kind of constant rejuvenation, where the world-as-given - including Scripture and the world's cultural history - are spoken of by those who know them in their inner reality, is the terminal limit of that process of punctuated rejuvenation of that which approaches annihilation.

[Cleric]

Yes, these are of course the questions I am constantly asking myself. One thing this path has not been is comfortable or convenient. Would it cause further discomfort to end up having been wrongly guided? Naturally. In that case, I'd like to think I'd be grateful to have been shown a truer way.

I think we are all fortunate enough to have been shown in a deeper way the true way, as in "The Way and the Truth and the Life." I guess it's about what we hope we can take along with us on this Way.

I feel everyone here can relate to this on a much smaller scale, with our closest family members. It is often precisely them that we would like to have the journey with, alas, as it often turns out, it is precisely them who can barely support us, let alone move in the same direction (He who loves father or mother more than Me...). This, of course, concerns the current incarnations; it shouldn't be thought of as some fatalistic divergence of the souls' trajectories.

So my personal stance is that this Inner Sun should always be at the center. Thus, our fulfilment comes not from whether the church that we expect happens to take the torch, but from whether we are a continuation of the Sun, whether we are a ray of the Living Ecclesia. There's a mystical formula, "Ihrish Ben Rut", which means "God, wherever you call me, I go".

[AshvinP]

Stimulated by Cleric's latest post and the profound lesson he linked, it's interesting to contemplate the question, "why limit the bold, which is surely a wise (if not always attainable) practice, to only the facts of esoteric science? Why not also the facts of Biblical revelation? One could say that the latter is Divinely revealed, but actually we could say the same of the former, and actually of all insights reached through unprejudiced thinking. It is all possible because the Spirit is revealing the higher-order curvatures of potential as images along the scale spectrum. As long as such insights remain abstract, i.e. not tied to concrete experiences we have lived through, perhaps we should try to limit communication of them until we have grown deeper into their inner reality. That is not to say all communication of Biblical truths should cease, of course, but that we should be stimulated to inwardly develop such that we are justified to communicate them. Just something to contemplate. I imagine this would not sit too comfortably with most priests, and perhaps not even the Pope

I think the comparison holds in a sense, but it is a bit of an apples and oranges situation. Scripture is a tradition whereas Anthroposophy as presented by Steiner is largely the reports of a single individual. The tradition has had a longstanding formative influence on souls and is part of the world-as-given. One cannot but communicate using the pre-established building blocks of the given world. The same constraints apply to spiritual-scientific discussion, where we have to use spatiotemporal language to communicate supersensible realities. Now, there are of course those who take Steiner's word as a kind of world-as-given, and it is that phenomenon that all of us here recognize as being un-anthroposophical. It's un-anthroposophical precisely because Anthroposophy is supposed to serve a different function, namely to be an instrument of rejuvenation (Lazarus-John). However, that instrument only serves its function when it has something to rejuvenate (the given world, Peter). It ultimately boils down to the question of why the descent into matter was necessary. Although Golgotha was the inflection point after which an ascent back toward spirit became possible, we have to also remember that Christ Jesus descended through the subterranean spheres. The world-as-given moves in this subterranean direction simultaneously with the ascent. Peter dives down toward the center of the earth to recapture everything he can from this approach toward the abyss. The goal of achieving a kind of constant rejuvenation, where the world-as-given - including Scripture and the world's cultural history - are spoken of by those who know them in their inner reality, is the terminal limit of that process of punctuated rejuvenation of that which approaches annihilation.

This is an extremely interesting direction of contemplation. As I am out of the country, I will have to be brief and try to circle back on it more later. Perhaps others are interested to share additional thoughts as well.

It seems to me the scripture as 'world as given' applies quite well to the OT, not so much for the NT. As you say, the latter becomes an inflection point where we are confronted with the mysteries of individual and collective existence (joyful, luminous, sorrowful, etc.) We are constantly reminded that particpating in these mysteries through faith is not a given (unlike what many believers expect), but an inner process of transfiguration, i.e. taking off the old self and putting on the new, etc. Thus, what you say about Anthroposophy as the instrument of rejuvenating the given world, I think equally applies to the Biblical revelations of the NT. In other words, we are not acquainted with the inner realities symbolized by the NT events as a matter of course, in our natural or cultural development, but rather first come to experience them in our intimate cognitive process and its dying, sacrificial, resurrecting, etc. dynamics.

What appears given is perhaps the cultural institions and traditions of the Church, which indeed need to be rejuvenated, and are like initial approximations of the NT mysteries by the devotional intellect. Certainly these approximations needed to be made and serve as building blocks for our modern cognitive orientation. And no doubt many priests are in their proper place reinforcing such building blocks, like natural scientists are in theirs providing the technical understanding of spatiotemporal phenomena that we leverage to metaphorically orient to and communicate supersensible realities. Yet for those of us already on the inner Way, it becomes a question of what we can take along, as Cleric noted above. If it is un-Anthroposophical to simply parrot Steiner's revelations without inner understanding, I feel it is similar with the NT mysteries.

The former may seem individually given at first, but as we know, they are embedded within the 'tradition' of the White Lodge and its hierarchical structure of initiated souls. In fact, this inner tradition draws on the exact same spiritual sources as the Biblical prophets and NT writers, i.e. Yahweh, Michael, Christ-Sophia, et al. It is the inner tradition that Christ promised through the Comforter who would remind and teach us of all the critical things.

[AshvinP]

Yet, how did we come to read PoF? How did it happen that the book fell into your hands? You remember? How did it happen that the first time you abandoned it? And what was the quest that made you change your mind, to give it a second try? What points did Cleric put forth that drove your enthusiasm to pick it up again? That's what I am saying, if it wasn't clear enough.

Ok, I see what you are saying here. This speaks more to the pre-Anthroposophical journey, I would say, which of course will be a strictly intellectual pursuit to begin with, born out of philosophical-scientific curiosity with the existential questions. I think this is the same journey people take into the theological domain, if their Christian faith is not only a byproduct of where they were born and how they were raised, but a process of reasoning through the scriptures.

Once I became acquained with the phenomenological process, however, I would say that I was invited to participate with my whole TFW being, which is precisely what distinguishes the Anthroposophical path from many others. It is only that which could truly drive my enthusiasm, as I experienced PoF, Cleric's posts, etc. subtly transforming my imaginative life from the inside-out.

[Rodriel Gabrez]

Here's a related thread I posted in another forum which relates this topic back to Philosophy of Freedom. I'm not sure if it adds much to what has already been discussed here, but maybe it does. Ashvin provided a few comments in the other forum, so perhaps he'd be interested in transferring those here as well (although no worries if not). I ended the original post with a few quotes from a great work by St. Maximus the Confessor which seemed resonant.

Working my way through Philosophy of Freedom again. It is truly a staggering achievement. It could perhaps be better titled Philosophy of the Christ Impulse. I'm seeing this time through just how fundamentally it captures the essence of the Gospel. Moral intuition is so integral to Christ's mission on earth. If one is unable to arrive at moral intuitions and must instead rely on given commands, one is looking for Christ in the tomb. But the one they seek is not there - he is risen. The resurrection of the body is the symbol for transforming sense-bound thought to supersensible cognition. What were once commands become acts of moral creativity rooted in self-emptying love.

Here's where I still think Tomberg contributed something that followers of this path simply can't ignore. Now one might think that arriving at such a position of moral freedom and responsibility means resisting or attempting to do away with the sense-bound approach imposed by others. However, acts of moral creativity very often entail submitting to the authority of those under the sway of the sense-bound approach. Such selfless acts, when imbued subtly but powerfully with the forces of resurrection, can themselves be crucifixions showing the way to the Gospel to Law-hardened souls. It is for this reason that rejecting the Roman Catholic Church is a grave error on the part of esotericists within the John stream. All arrows point toward the Law (sense-bound authority) being the necessary vessel for the Gospel (moral creativity). The resurrection of the body means one does not abandon the body; rather, one infuses it with the spirit.

The dogma of the Church is the upper limit of sense-derived conceptual expression applied to the domain of the spiritual. It is the pinnacle of "Peter thinking," thinking which derives from the senses (Nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu) but is open to the spirit (intuitively recognizes Christ as the "son of the living God"). Furthermore, it is salutary and in a sense even necessary for the esotericist to rise to the upper heights of this disciplined, Peter thinking - in other words to bring to mastery one's faculties of faith-allied logic, before attempting to deepen into the domain of supersensible perception. One must allow Peter to enter the tomb first within one's own soul, and this activity is channeled through the strictures of dogma, the tenets of which are absolutely true within the domain of sense-derived thinking.

The great Moses, having pitched his tent outsdie the camp, that is, having installed his free will and his understanding outside the visible, begins to adore God. Having entered the darkness, the formless and immaterial place of knowledge, he remains there to accomplish the most sacred rites.

Darkness is a formless, immaterial, and incorporeal state which bears the exemplary knolwedge of beings. The one who enters into this state as another Moses understands things invisible to his mortal nature. Through his state he depicts in himself the beauty of the divine virtues just as a handwriting is a good imitation of the beauty of the archetype; he descends, offering himself to those who want to imitate his virtue and showing by this the generous and ungrudging grace received in exchange.

The Law is the flesh of the spiritual man which is Holy Scripture, the Prophets are the senses, and the Gospel is the spiritual soul. Through the flesh of the Law and through the sense of the Prophets the soul is activated and expresses its own power in its activities.

To those who apply themselves with the utmost zeal to the divine Scriptures the Word as Lord appears under two forms: first, a general and public sight not reserved to a small number of which it is said, "We have seen him, he had neither form nor beauty"'; the second is more hidden and accessible to a small number, to those who have already become as Peter, James, and John, the holy apostles before whom the Lord was transfigured in a glory overpowering the senses, in which "he is beautiful in appearance before the sons of men." Of these two forms, the first is fitting for beginners, the second is proportioned to those who have become perfect in knolwedge, insofar as this is attainable. The former is the image of the first coming of the Lord to which the letter of the Gospel refers and which purifies by sufferings those who are in the stage of striving. The latter is a prefiguring of the second and glorious coming in which is understood the Spirit. It transfigures the gnostics by wisdom with a view toward their deification. By this transfiguration of the Word in them, they behold with unveiled faces the Lord's glory.

St. Maximus the Confessor - Chapters on Knowledge