Philosophical Speculations

Rodriel Gabrez wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 6:13 pm One of the most important things I have learned from Anthroposophy is that world evolution in the light of the spirit simply cannot be considered discursively on the level of competing concepts. Spiritual currents and impulses are directed throughout world evolution through the deeds of individualities. Deeds, lying in the domain of action, though they often involve complex sets of definite concepts (like Anthroposophy), involve strategy. Things have to happen in a certain order, in a certain way, and involve certain people - according to what is demanded by the times. The way the spirit unfolds through time is like a choreographed dance. Moreover, this dance has to be continually updated and adjusted in response to material events, which, while they do happen in accordance with broadly determined trajectories are nonetheless the province of freedom and are not set in stone. All that said, I believe one simply must look at Tomberg's work at the level of moral strategy. His project was a series of deeds more than it was a set of concepts. When we look at it this way, with the deeds chiefly in mind, the concepts become illuminated and make perfect sense. We also then see how they are completely and absolutely Johannine and in perfect spiritual unity with Rudolf Steiner.

The way I've tried to explain Tomberg's careful approach to the issue of reincarnation above shows the choreographed dance involved in the manner in which this important but dangerous fact must come to consciousness. Steiner blew his trumpet, and this blast was required at that precise moment in time. It made the impression it needed to make on the karmic stream alive at the time, and the fact is that thanks to the globalization of world culture (which Steiner foresaw) the trumpet blast is now available to anyone and everyone who chooses to listen, including those who find themselves directly called by Lazarus-John. One can learn Anthroposophy on one's own simply through online resources. Most people who chance upon it randomly will write it off as an oddity, but those who are so destined will find it something they need to pursue. Now, the question is whether such people, having learned of reincarnation, should publicly discuss it or teach it. Reincarnation has always been something belonging to the domain of personal certainty. It is best for one discover it on their own, for reasons we have gone over and for which you have supplied supporting quotes from Tomberg. So here is how things stand: now that Steiner has necessarily broken the centuries-long pact of secrecy and communicated the fact of reincarnation to those who needed to hear it, the work of publicly proclaiming reincarnation is over. The impulse has been released and has taken hold. Does this make reincarnation any less integral and important as a temporary spiritual fact? No. It simply changes the manner in which it can and should come to consciousness. And that manner is the John stream entering the Peter stream. The Peter stream has washed the feet of its members. "He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly." (Jn 13:10). The infusion of the John stream will subtly bring moral creativity to those who have been prepared, and supersensible cognition will be awakened within them, first within a select few individuals, and then more and more slowly over generations. This is at least what Tomberg is saying in his work (not explicitly but implicitly), and this has become my conviction as well.

As to the anonymous authorship of Meditations, this is a symbolic element pointing to the essence of Tomberg's deed, as it relates to the mystery of Lazarus-John. It's another one of Tomberg's truly masterful moves. The Lazarus-John connection is wholly unique to Anthroposophy. Somehow - and this is hard for me to wrap my head around - nobody throughout Christian history seems to have exoterically discovered the common identity of Lazurus and John. The connection is thus not traditional and therefore likely to be met with hostility within Church circles. But Tomberg makes the connection esoterically (without ever stating it directly), in a manner that draws upon the way this connection is made in John's gospel itself. To recap, in the Gospel of John we hear of Lazarus as "the one Jesus loved", and then after his death and resurrection in chapter 13 we hear of him no more. Instead, we hear of the "beloved disciple" whom tradition identifies as the gospel writer himself. The "beloved disciple" is not directly given a proper name. He is technically anonymous. Tomberg, in following the pattern of Lazarus-John, has plunged himself directly into this stream. He has died to himself and been raised anonymous, as one to whom the fifth gospel is available . The "fifth gospel" is the gospel which arises from clairvoyant perception. It is only available through personal certainty. Anthroposophy was the impulse within our time meant to bring about this ability within individuals, and as such it can't be imposed externally but must be realized within. Rudolf Steiner and his gift of Anthroposophy was thus a kind of Lazarus - a public spectacle which had to die to itself and be raised anonymously, i.e. in the private confines of personal certainty - through "anonymous friends" (Johns) who let Peter go first into the tomb. Meditations on the Tarot is Anthroposophy in its resurrected form.

I will end with an interesting quote from Tomberg's Christ and Sophia, a pre-Catholic work hinting at some of his later ideas:

The moral core of the miracle involving the man born blind was the new impulse to perceive. At the moral center of raising Lazarus, the seventh miracle, is the new impulse to life on the Earth as a whole. Lazarus’ sickness involved a gradual drying up of the life spring within him, until he finally lost all will to live—to such a degree that even his breathing stopped. His death was conditioned by such an absence of life impulse, therefore, that even his breathing lacked any inducement to continue. Etherically, he was “bleeding to death.” The ether body wasted away gradually, and his life forces abandoned the physical body. This was not a disease in the sense that the physical body suffered trauma or poisoning; he was in perfect health. The whole process was brought on by the ether body itself. A complete transformation occurred in Lazarus’ ether body. Instead of working inward and bringing life forces to the physical body, it turned and poured them outward, thus losing the capacity to draw life forces from the natural environment—sunlight, plants, and food. Instead of a body that received, his body only gave. Indeed, it was devotion to the cosmic whole that caused his ether body to radiate out and reduced its capacity to replace what was given by taking from outside. This outpouring of life force was not corrected, and Lazarus languished. This transformation of Lazarus’ ether body was caused by his soul’s devotion to the spiritual world, developed so strongly that it affected his ether body. This process points to the danger that exists when an inner life spring has not developed inwardly that can replace what is given out. A spring, into which a direct stream of life force flows from the spiritual world, was called the “glory of God” (he doxa tou Theou). The phrase “Glory of God” (as used in both the Old and New Testaments) refers to a direct radiation of the Godhead that shines down into the etheric. According to the New Testament, “Glory” (doxa), which not only illuminates but also gives life, is the special function of the Son—God the Son breathes life into what is created by God the Father and revealed by God the Spirit. In this sense, the sickness of Lazarus was “not unto death, but for the glory [radiant activity] of God, that the Son of God might be glorified [revealed as actively radiant] thereby” (John 11:4). This emptiness of life force that afflicted Lazarus had the purpose of being filled with life radiating from the Son. Furthermore, this happened just as Jesus Christ called Lazarus out of the tomb. The cry of Jesus Christ was also a call to Earth, a call to life on Earth. Indeed, something happened even before this cry that points to the path on which the loosened link with Earth could be restored. This is the path indicated in the first part of Goethe’s Faust, when the Easter bells sound and Faust speaks these significant words: “Tears flow—Earth holds me once again.” Flowing tears express the new relationship of faithfulness to the Earth as established by the Easter impulse—established so that the soul remembers, morally, the Earth’s need. In other words, it receives a new life impulse not because of the Earth’s good things, but out of being conscious of its needs.

Rodriel Gabrez wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 4:48 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Sep 26, 2025 5:23 pm I find myself really hoping that would you write above is the case, and I can imagine the Church still serves that function for quite a few souls who are intellectually inclined and enthusiastic to accept its teachings. I am curious though, how you are evaluating this - "And the laity (the real laity - not those who are Catholic by birth but don't attend Mass) overwhelmingly accepts what is taught"? How can we know what the real laity accept in their hearts, rather than at the surface of their intellectual life which gets expressed in answers to polls or in casual conversation with other members of the Church? There may be a lot of pressure to repeat back what has been taught, but it's difficult to translate that directly into true acceptance which will hold up when the surrounding environment inevitably pressures their "I" in the other direction.

Related to that, based on inner experience, the acceptance of what is taught in this way runs contrary to PoF, ethical individualism, and the Christ Impulse. The reason being that it inevitably fosters a certain resentment in the increasingly individuated and freedom-seeking "I", even if the souls are completely unaware of that and feel pretty satisfied with what they are doing at the surface. I am sure you have heard all of the usual metaphors before, i.e., an indentation in rubber pushing back out, and so on. For those of us who have been prepared to spiral together, I think we should remain faithful to our intuitive process and to integrate what we learn from our increasing sensitivity to the inner dynamics. For me, that has precisely been becoming more sensitive to how doing things I don't deeply want to do (or not doing things I still deeply want to do) leads to a seething undercurrent of frustration and resentment.

That doesn't mean I should give in to all my momentary impulses in the name of "freedom", not at all. We can only make progress if we take incremental steps to resist the usual curvatures. But I should also remain honest about what is being renounced out of love for the spiritual life and what is still being renounced out of the momentum of accepting the teachings of spiritual authorities or wanting to fit in with my community, remaining fully lucid of how the latter can lead to a dangerous bounce back in the other direction if I am not vigilant. The problem I see is that there is no basis for the laity to likewise become conscious of these inner tensions and guard against the potential bounce back from accepting the moral teachings of the Church, especially if they are accepting such teachings as a matter of course without any critical examination. Such an examination is not meant to be arbitrarily doubtful or skeptical, but to move our imaginative activity against the grain of outer impressions and conceptions so we can become more sensitive to how they are influencing us at deeper scales.

I think you're completely right to raise these points about the danger of resentment or "bounce back" which can arise as a result of deeds done out of duty instead of complete moral freedom. This is a very real phenomenon and not an uncommon one in the Church. (You're right - I'm not able to know exactly what's in others' hearts, but at a bare minimum I can assume that others are experiencing similar struggles to my own.) I would argue that it's an inevitable part of the journey toward the goal of moral creativity, which in its full achievement is a spurring-to-action of the spirit self and therefore something that we should only expect to experience glimpses of today. To truly want what is immensely difficult and self-sacrificing in every situation is an incredibly lofty thing. We know this firsthand through our work with spiritual exercises. While Steiner framed this goal in quite explicitly philosophical terms, it's inherent in the Gospels and is there in the RCC but in a state that has been latent over the course of most of its history, only recently coming to the fore, for instance in the canonization of Joan of Arc in 1920 and in the formalization of the doctrine of personal conscience in 1994. In any case, the fact that this danger of resentment exists is all the more reason for the urgency of the merging of the Peter and John streams. This fructification has the potential to catalyze into full activity what is lying in waiting.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 3:18 pm We may feel that it is too mystical and lofty to begin opening the blinds and realizing how the Spirit Self is already present and active within the surface of our imaginative life, but is collapsed and flattened over the screen of our inner perceptions. Now it is waiting to be delaminated, to be untied and ungagged, and we can undoubtedly birth more of this higher Self right now than we initially suspect.

The second bridge is what indeed leads us to recognize our ordinary intellectual life to be something akin to a picture-in-picture mode in respect to the more encompassing World flow within which our personal is concentrically embedded. The crucial thing is that in our age we are at a stage where the only viable bridge is to address the matters directly. In a sense, we are already in the water. If we try to build bridges by speaking in parables about wetness, we're actually only diverting attention from what is already imminent in the present moment.
...
So with that said, the only viable bridge available for the intellect to know its deeper reality is to tackle the problem head-on. We simply have to exert ourselves and try to feel our precipitating mental images as having something to do with more intimate intuitive steering of becoming. There's nothing we can do to 'bridge this more'. This doesn't mean that we cannot speak of these things in step-by-step manner, through the various analogies and metaphors, but these no longer serve to make a theoretical mental picture but are actual guidelines for entering the new mode.

Rodriel Gabrez wrote: ↑Sat Sep 27, 2025 6:13 pm The way I've tried to explain Tomberg's careful approach to the issue of reincarnation above shows the choreographed dance involved in the manner in which this important but dangerous fact must come to consciousness. Steiner blew his trumpet, and this blast was required at that precise moment in time. It made the impression it needed to make on the karmic stream alive at the time, and the fact is that thanks to the globalization of world culture (which Steiner foresaw) the trumpet blast is now available to anyone and everyone who chooses to listen, including those who find themselves directly called by Lazarus-John. One can learn Anthroposophy on one's own simply through online resources. Most people who chance upon it randomly will write it off as an oddity, but those who are so destined will find it something they need to pursue. Now, the question is whether such people, having learned of reincarnation, should publicly discuss it or teach it. Reincarnation has always been something belonging to the domain of personal certainty. It is best for one discover it on their own, for reasons we have gone over and for which you have supplied supporting quotes from Tomberg. So here is how things stand: now that Steiner has necessarily broken the centuries-long pact of secrecy and communicated the fact of reincarnation to those who needed to hear it, the work of publicly proclaiming reincarnation is over. The impulse has been released and has taken hold. Does this make reincarnation any less integral and important as a temporary spiritual fact? No. It simply changes the manner in which it can and should come to consciousness. And that manner is the John stream entering the Peter stream. The Peter stream has washed the feet of its members. "He that is washed, needeth not but to wash his feet, but is clean wholly." (Jn 13:10). The infusion of the John stream will subtly bring moral creativity to those who have been prepared, and supersensible cognition will be awakened within them, first within a select few individuals, and then more and more slowly over generations. This is at least what Tomberg is saying in his work (not explicitly but implicitly), and this has become my conviction as well.

Federica wrote: ↑Sun Sep 28, 2025 1:14 pm I realize that the way I posed the question of continuity between the works of VT och RS is intellectual and discursive, and see how you are pointing to an extension and an upgrade, so to say.

I guess the disagreement here could be seen in terms of wavelength, or tempo, within the unfolding of the choreography. In your view, the wavelength corresponding to the movements Steiner played in the overall evolutionary choreography was meant to be intense and short. Therefore, continuation of Anthroposophy at the times of Tomberg already meant an overturn of the ‘high peak’ that had manifested in Steiner’s “blowing of the trumpet”. And Tomberg represents that continuation. In terms of concepts, this reads like an inversion, while in terms of long term moral strategy and deeds, the wave remains one and the same.

What probably doesn’t sit right with me in this take is the idea that the access to the Johannine stream should not be actively facilitated by those who are beginning to feel called to it. You are basically saying: “if it’s your karma, it’s your karma. There’s free access to all of Anthroposophy online, that’s enough. It’s to each and everyone to find it by themselves, there’s no need to advertise these things”. What I would argue against this view, is that, first, there is freedom, as you said. And freedom can change ever so slightly the course of events. Even if it’s only just to bring the spiritual path to the attention of one additional soul that a monumental bridge is built, well it will have been worth the effort. And this is karma too. Secondly, I feel that the blowing of that trumpet is more like a once and for always type of novelty, introduced by Steiner, rather than an ephemeral wakeup call that has now completed its function and can be reabsorbed within a larger strategy. This makes more sense to me in the context of the growing up of humanity through materialism. Not to deny that there will always be differentiated streams, but these have now become more consciously playable, and I don’t see the necessity to block the possibility for souls to help each other out towards the discovery of the entry point of the path.

I would still like to give it more reflection, but at this point I feel that evolution is tough enough. Why wouldn’t an active stance of bridge-building be an integral part of brotherhood and community in the present time? I feel this was the original spirit of the Anthroposophical society as Steiner intended it, and it feels arbitrary that a Valentin Tomberg came in only a handful of years later to correct the shot and decide that a big part of the stream now needed to be protected from certain knowledge, for their own good.

But as I said, I definitely want to give these ideas more attention. Thank you for sharing these challenging views so well.

Rodriel Gabrez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 29, 2025 1:10 am

What you see as "blocking the entry point of the path" I see as a more subtle means of guiding others toward it. Ultimately what the difference comes down to is whether or not we feel that thrusting someone in front of an open door and asking them to choose immediately whether or not to enter it is the exclusively legitimate tactic. Most people will simply not choose to enter, even in light of our best efforts to present the facts to them. Do we keep hitting these people over the head with the same approach, or do we change our strategy so that the moment of personal realization might come at some point.