Tomberg and Anthroposophy

[AshvinP]

Neither Satan, nor Belial, nor Lucifer, nor Mephistopheles have ever deprived anyone of his freedom. Temptation is their only weapon and this presupposes the freedom of he who is tempted. But possession by an "evil spirit" has nothing to do with temptation. It is invariably the same thing as with Frankenstein's monster. One engenders an elemental being and one subsequently becomes the slave of one's own creation. The "demons" or "evil spirits" of the New testament are called today in psychotherapy "neuroses of obsession", "neuroses or fear", "fixed ideas", etc. They have been discovered by contemporary psychiatrists and are recognised as real— i.e. as "parasitic psychic organisms" independent of the conscious human will and tending to subjugate it. But the devil is not there to no avail —although not in the sense of direct participation. He observes the law—which protects human freedom and is the inviolable convention between the hierarchies of the "right" and those of the "left"—and never violates it, as stands out in the example of the story of Job. One need not fear the devil, but rather the perverse tendencies in oneself! For these perverse human tendencies can deprive us of our freedom and enslave us. Worse still, they can avail themselves of our imagination and inventive faculties and lead us to creations which can become the scourge of mankind. The atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb are flagrant examples of this.

Man with the possible perversity of his warped imagination is far more dangerous than the devil and his legions. For man is not bound by the convention concluded between heaven and hell; he can go beyond the limits of the law and engender arbitrarily malicious forces whose nature and action are beyond the framework of the law. . .such being the Molochs and other "gods" of Canaa, Phoenecia. Carthage, ancient Mexico and other lands, which exacted human sacrifice. One has to guard against accusing the beings of the hierarchies of evil to their detriment of having played the role of Molochs, these being only creatures of the perverse collective human will and imagination. These are egregores, engendered by collective perversity, just as there exist the "demons" or "evil spirits" engendered by individuals.

So the idea that VT does not emphasize the forces of evil within oneself, is simply a misunderstanding. I believe the reason it is misunderstood is that too much focus is placed on the surface-level content, perhaps colored by a certain conception of what he is 'up to', rather than what VT is doing throughout all of the meditations. He is subtly saying, "There is no need to focus all your efforts on intellectually investigating this or that evil being of the hierarchies, but rather begin transforming the evil within yourself. As soon as you begin this purifying work, the evil beings will come to meet you and make their presence known! They will initially resist your efforts every step of the way. Except now, when you meet them in full consciousness, they will also begin to be experienced simultaneously as adversaries and servants/friends, rather than hypothetical forces of evil out there in the world." This is a point you have also made several times on this forum. As long as we remain patient and work through the meditations, this is the unmistakable impression we get from VT's inner process. I hope the above can give us some sense of how we may be prejudging things with VT-MoT.

But this only confirms the point I wanted to make. And it all comes due to the already established fact that everything is expressed from the standpoint of Imagination. This is clear from other statements too, such as: "Love is the vital element of profound knowledge, intuitive knowledge. Now, one cannot love evil. Evil is therefore unknowable in its essence. One can understand it only at a distance, as an observer of its phenomenology." Things get really mixed up here. Although it is spoken of intuitive knowledge, it is effectively accepted that we can only know evil by observing its phenomenology, which is practically still the astral condition. However, it is precisely in its essence that evil can be known, because ultimately, all beings spring from the Divine. Yet, we need the higher forms of cognition to trace these deep origins. So while it is true that on a lower level, it's far more important to work on the virtues rather than having completely abstract thoughts about the evil beings, such knowledge is nevertheless vital at the needed time. Otherwise, if we only expect to know evil by observing its phenomenology, as something that has no intersection with our essence, we form a blind spot. Then, later, even with our greatest effort to cherish good thoughts, feelings, and actions, we may feel assailed by quite the opposite, and it will be a dreadful experience, because we do not observe in the astral any phenomenology that sends them toward us. Again, this is not so much to speak against VT, but just to show how these subtle characteristics of MoT can be reinforced by those who teach them. Standing in the astral and believing that evil can only be quietly observed in its soul-physiognomy, without ever expecting to find it intermingled with our essence, is a recipe for disaster.

Rodriel mentioned what I was going to as well. It struck me immediately that we cannot treat VT's expressions as directly comparable to most spiritual scientific teachings from Steiner. On the one hand, we criticize VT for his subtle half-messaging approach, but on the other, we forget about this approach when evaluating the meaning of his expressions. The meaning that I get from the passage is somewhat different from Rodriel, although I'm sure these distinct meanings can still exist in relative harmony. The meaning he expressed is perhaps a level deeper than mine.

When we unite with the Divine essence of evil via Intuitive knowledge, can we really describe it as "evil" that we are uniting with? It seems to me that it is only within ordinary intellectual and astral phenomenology that the concept of evil, as clearly delineated from the Good, still maintains. And at this level of astral phenomenology, we certainly don't want to merge with the evil perspectives and currents, but rather observe them 'from a distance'. That simply means we retain the lucid consciousness and integrity of our "I" and its Divine source, without identifying with the astral phenomenology that we symbolically explore. Once we go beyond this astral scale and into the Devachanic spectrums where the 'common ancestors' of both good and evil perspectives can be brought into focus through the deepest sympathy and love, we no longer speak of "evil" but only the Good, Beautiful, and True. It is only when the latter is filtered through the constraints of astral asynchronicity that it delaminates into spiritual flows which are 'out of season'.

Since we agree that MoT is primarily crafted as a means of orienting to experiences attainable through living thinking and imaginative cognition, it makes sense that the Letter would only focus on the astral phenomenology and also caution against the all too common practice of seekers subtly identifying with the astral phenomena at the center of contemplation, just as we do in our ordinary state with the phenomena of our personality. This is the 'distance' we need in this domain of inquiry and which we also find in Steiner when he discusses various aspects of astral vision. We know he often warns about confusing living images which seem to approach from without, but really reflect what is within us, as external realities about the spiritual world (VT also discusses this at length in terms of the "sphere of mirages" or "zone of illusion"). How are we able to remain conscious of this distinction? Precisely by gaining cognitive distance on the elemental patterns of our soul life so that, when they come to meet us from without, we are not tempted to externalize them, to "fear the devil rather than the perverse tendencies within ourselves". We have to admit, this also makes sense of what we find in VT and is also rooted in verifiable inner dynamics.


VT: "There is, therefore, the joy of Wisdom and the joy of intoxication —called "strange water" in the text of the Septuagint. The former springs from Wisdom, whilst the latter produces a false wisdom which consists of mirages. For a sphere of mirages exists in the invisible world, which constitutes the principal trap for esotericists, gnostics and mystics —for all those who are seeking authentic spiritual experience. Rudolf Steiner named it the "belt of lies" (Lügengurtet), and in traditional Christian Hermeticism it is called the "sphere of the false Holy Spirit". This sphere (or belt) is closer to that of ordinary consciousness —so-called "egoconsciousness"—than the "sphere of the Holy Spirit" [Devachan], where saints sojourn and from whence they act on human terrestrial consciousness. Thus, in order to rise to the sphere of the saints and the celestial hierarchies, one has first to "traverse", i.e. to refuse to react to its attraction, the "sphere of the false Holy Spirit". It is to the disciple "without sense" that the above-quoted text of the Septuagint is addressed: ". . . delay not in the place, neither fix thine eye upon her: for thus shalt thou go through strange water; but thou shouldst abstain from strange water" (Proverbs ix, 18 in The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament; trsl. L. C. L. Brenton. London, 1844, p. 653).

Now it might be said that things cannot be analogized in such a way. And it is true that nothing is 1:1, but things are not that wildly different either. The second coming is a reality on an individual basis, yet we need to keep a 'straight face' before the Church, and play along with the belief that it will come as an event at the Omega point. The key thing, however, is that Judaism never got transformed; it has its own karmic path to tread. Many individual souls got transformed, but the fortress of Judaism keeps its ground. This is simply the way humanity's evolution works. And I think that we simply ignore these facts when we imagine that the RCC is somehow the exception from the rule and its megalithic structure is destined, not only to transform but to somehow assume once again a world-leading role.

The main counter-argument has been "But are we to leave the Church simply to die out?" Well, the same question can be asked for everything else. Should we let Judaism die out? Why don't we join the Hebrew project and try to save it? This is what I tried to focus on in the previous post. It's not that we need to remain cold-hearted to all these evolutionary forms, but we need true understanding about how these forms arise, how they live, and how they are recycled in the spiritual economy of the Cosmos. Everything has its own specific path. No such form has even been 'saved' in the way we imagine it. Even if the Church were to be saved in this way, it would no longer be the Church as we know it, just like Judaism would no longer be the same if it accepted the Messiah. While the Hebrews were arguing about the Messiah, the Gentiles took the impulse and very soon they became the Christians. The impulse grows not where we would like it to. We can be sure that many Hebrews in the early years thought, "How great it would be if every one of us, Jews, believed in the Messiah! We'll be once again the glorious Chosen People of God." Yet, the forces shaped history otherwise.

We shouldn't be concerned with saving academia. What does this even mean? What exactly do we want to save? It can easily turn out like saving wildlife by making nature reserves. We make conditions in which the Old can be preserved. Whoever strives to bring the New will carry academia with them. If academia resists and drags in the opposite direction, they will build one anew. This is how all life grows, how everything evolves. In this discussion, the issue has been reversed, as if we can only move forward by transforming the existing husks completely. Then we ask, "What has a better chance of being saved - the Church or academia?" Logically, the Church is far closer to the idea of Christ, so we may suppose that it is the better bet for expending our energies. But again, how did we get convinced that humanity's future depends on the transformation of old wineksins in the first place? The New creates its own forms. It utilizes the existing materials, but it creates its form through fresh forces; it doesn't try to coax the old forms to shape-shift, such that they can become vessels for the new.

It is not a comparable analogy for a very important reason, which we learn most deeply through spiritual science. It is the fact that the flow of evolution inverted through the Christ events on the historical plane. Now, there was established a certain harmony between the Spirit and its outer form such that the latter could begin participating in the former's eternal life. There are even initiates who are said to have already immortalized the physical body. Of course, such things are considered ludicrous from the default perspective of 'what reality is', but for those of us who have shifted this perspective, it is really fascinating and profound to contemplate.


https://rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA099/En ... 29p01.html
"The Initiate performs consciously, between death and a new birth, what the average human being performs unconsciously between birth and death; the Initiate consciously builds up his new physical body. For him, therefore, birth amounts to no more than an outstanding event in his existence. He exchanges the substances only once, but then fundamentally. Hence there is considerable similarity of stature and form in such Individualities from one incarnation to another, whereas in those who are but little developed there is no similarity of form whatever in their successive incarnations. The higher the development of a man, the greater is the similarity in two successive incarnations; this is clearly perceptible to clairvoyant sight. There is a definite phrase for indicating this higher stage of development; it is said that such a man is not born in a different body, any more than it is said of the average human being that he receives a new body every seven years. Of a Master it is said: he is born in the same body; he uses it for hundreds, even thousands of years. This is the case with the vast majority of leading Individualities. An exception is formed by certain Masters who have their own special mission; with them the physical body remains, so that death does not occur for them at all. These are the Masters whose task it is to watch over and bring about the transition from one race to another."

So we see how things have changed and inverted for the post-Christ times, as the capacity for immortalization previously reserved for the select few is increasingly universalized within Earthly humanity. Although such deeper work on the physical form is far off for many of us, even the much lesser initiates can now work upon immortalizing the astral body, attaining complete continuity of existence between life and death with respect to the soul spectrum of living perceptions, ideas, and impulses. We know that the soul content that is completely formatted by the physical organism falls away. Yet that content which can retain its meaning independent of that formatting persists. We could say the 'stature and form' of our soul life begins to grow more stable through the life rhythms, no longer acting like a highly unstable isotope that continually decays and is born anew. Or on a lesser scale of the daily rhythm, our dream life can begin to feel like it is more continuous with our waking imaginative life, superimposed with the latter, and thus we are experiencing greater living continuity within the astral body.

The astral body is analogous to the cultural landscape and its institutions at the Earthly scale. The key is not to identify the idea of "cultural institutions" with particular physical structures, wired connections, Earthly personalities (who obviously continue to die out and come in anew), or specific forms of teachings which exclusively take shape from these physical substrates. All of these would be analogous to particular passions, desires, perceptions, and thoughts of the astral body that took shape exclusively through experience formatted by the physical organism. These are not what we mean when we say the astral body can be immortalized. If we don't make that identification, then it becomes possible to imagine these institutional bodies being progressively renewed and immortalized in some stable form, just as the individual astral body can be in the wake of the Christ blast wave. We can imagine that certain lines of progressive continuity between cultural bodies will be maintained. 

So all that appeared of necessity before Christ incarnate, like the Hebrew project, is indeed fated to fall away and only arise again from within completely new and unsuspected forms. Yet those forms which were creatively fashioned after Christ now begin to partake in his eternal life, beginning with the astral-cultural forms. The forms of the biological and physical spaces will still be experienced for most of us exactly as you describe, but there is room for more continuity to be experienced within the collective soul space. If we start to consider what a truly universal Church body would be, i.e., one that reintegrates all its wayward streams of Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, even Protestant, we already need to stretch our imagination in a quite uncertain direction toward forms of sacramental life that are not too clear. We can already start to feel how that would arise in a form that cannot be linearly extrapolated from the current familiar forms. But, nevertheless, the new form partakes through Christ in a stream of continuity that is not directly comparable to how we currently experience the complete dying away and rebirth of biological and physical forms.

[Federica]

It struck me immediately that we cannot treat VT's expressions as directly comparable to most spiritual scientific teachings from Steiner. On the one hand, we criticize VT for his subtle half-messaging approach, but on the other, we forget about this approach when evaluating the meaning of his expressions.

The bold is incorrect. You forget a crucial point here. That Tomberg utilizes this subtle half-messaging is only your disputable hypothesis (I have asked Rodriel how these conceptions were formed).

Notice, the entire Catholic project absolutely needs this tenet in order to stand. For my part, I do not think that Tomberg was practicing any half-messaging or double game. I rather think he was sincere and idealistic, and that he really, sincerely, and wholeheartedly rejected spiritual science, and argued for the split between spiritual and practical. So it’s not that “we forget the half-messaging”. I rather dispute that such half-messaging is a reality. There is no substance whatsoever to that, other than the arbitrary, inductive construction we have come to call the Catholic project. Despite this lack of substance, the half-messaging-double-game is like an ontic rockbottom for the Catholic project. Take the veiled-but-pedagogical half-messaging away, and the project instantly crumbles down into nothing (or at least the forces behind it need to find another vessel). What remains is the spiritual yearning and fervor of a man whose paradoxical karma was to expose and stretch himself in between two ages, despite his ascetic aspirations.

As I see it, the Catholic project doesn’t actually do justice to Tomberg’s sincerity and other soul qualities. Rather, it needs to turn him into an instrument. The project - to be clear I am not referring to Rodriel or you, but to the spiritual deeper origins of the project - needs to hijack MoT, to make sense. And it does it! This is unfortunately possible, due to MoTs fragile positioning in between everything, like on the edge of a precipice (as earlier evoked).

I think that, causally speaking, the Catholic project comes before MoT. It’s preordained with respect to its (supposed) explicitation-illustration through MoT and through Tomberg's whole individuality by extension. As I see it, this remains true at a large-and-deep level even if in the chronology of your personal experiences, MoT made its appearance first, and then the Catholic project took conscious shape.

[AshvinP]

The bold is incorrect. You forget a crucial point here. That Tomberg utilizes this subtle half-messaging is only your disputable hypothesis (I have asked Rodriel how these conceptions were formed).

Notice, the entire Catholic project absolutely needs this tenet in order to stand. For my part, I do not think that Tomberg was practicing any half-messaging or double game. I rather think he was sincere and idealistic, and that he really, sincerely, and wholeheartedly rejected spiritual science, and argued for the split between spiritual and practical. So it’s not that “we forget the half-messaging”. I rather dispute that such half-messaging is a reality. There is no substance whatsoever to that, other than the arbitrary, inductive construction we have come to call the Catholic project. Despite this lack of substance, the half-messaging-double-game is like an ontic rockbottom for the Catholic project. Take the veiled-but-pedagogical half-messaging away, and the project instantly crumbles down into nothing (or at least the forces behind it need to find another vessel). What remains is the spiritual yearning and fervor of a man whose paradoxical karma was to expose and stretch himself in between two ages, despite his ascetic aspirations.

As I see it, the Catholic project doesn’t actually do justice to Tomberg’s sincerity and other soul qualities. Rather, it needs to turn him into an instrument. The project - to be clear I am not referring to Rodriel or you, but to the spiritual deeper origins of the project - needs to hijack MoT, to make sense. And it does it! This is unfortunately possible, due to MoTs fragile positioning in between everything, like on the edge of a precipice (as earlier evoked).

I think that, causally speaking, the Catholic project comes before MoT. It’s preordained with respect to its (supposed) explicitation-illustration through MoT and through Tomberg's whole individuality by extension. As I see it, this remains true at a large-and-deep level even if in the chronology of your personal experiences, MoT made its appearance first, and then the Catholic project took conscious shape.

That is not correct - the subtle half-messaging is how Cleric has described it multiple times. In fact, I have suggested it is better thought of in terms of the 'attempts and hints' that Cleric used to describe the autonomous and spontaneous projects.

No one denies what you are saying. As I have tried to point out multiples times, the spiritual deeper origins of any adversarial project (including the shadow side of the spiritual scientific project) is always a deviation and hijacking of progressive wisdom. PoF, KHW, and Occult Science can and have also become instruments of such projects (just join a Discord server where Steiner is discussed to verify this), and obviously, MoT can become one as well. There is nothing remarkable in this observation.

Apart from that, I think the bold is completely wrong and can only be born from a deep unfamiliarity, disinterest, and corresponding misunderstanding with VT's work.

[Federica]

That is not correct - the subtle half-messaging is how Cleric has described it multiple times. In fact, I have suggested it is better thought of in terms of the 'attempts and hints' that Cleric used to describe the autonomous and spontaneous projects.

No one denies what you are saying. As I have tried to point out multiples times, the spiritual deeper origins of any adversarial project (including the shadow side of the spiritual scientific project) is always a deviation and hijacking of progressive wisdom. PoF, KHW, and Occult Science can and have also become instruments of such projects (just join a Discord server where Steiner is discussed to verify this), and obviously, MoT can become one as well. There is nothing remarkable in this observation.

Apart from that, I think the bold is completely wrong and can only be born from a deep unfamiliarity, disinterest, and corresponding misunderstanding with VT's work.

I don't think so. Cleric has refrained from primarily focusing the discussion around the individuality of Tomberg:

If VT has spoken in half-words, and then we add the other halves from ourselves, then what we're discussing here is primarily the part that we add and insist that this is what VT implied but never said. That's why I suggested that it's even better if we do not focus so much on him but on what our individual vision is.

But in anycase, what I have expressed is my view that the double game is in the Catholic project, not in Tomberg.

[Federica]

As said, I think exoteric events are secondary in the context of this discussion. However, since it’s happening right now, and it's not a minor thing, it's interesting to take note of another sign of the RCC’s will to expand its reach and consensus - besides the already mentioned signs. The day before yesterday the Vatican officially rejected the so-called “Marian dogma” according to which Maria has the quality of Co-Redemptrix/Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix of all Graces. One interesting aspect is that Maria/Sophia is particularly important for Tomberg, who by the way called her Co-Redemptrix. Her role was even a crucial reason for him not to join the Christian Community, and finally turn to the RCC instead, as I have understood. This biographical passage was previously quoted:

Certainly, the question of religious renewal was discussed, especially what would be done after the defeat of Germany, when the ban on the Christian Community would be lifted. Liturgical questions, too, must have been addressed. Tomberg evidently made a plea for the inclusion of the Mary-Sophia being. Bock apparently would have nothing of it: “We have Michael. That suffices. We do not need Mary-Sophia.” For Tomberg, Mary-Sophia was the foundation of any authentic religious, spiritual striving and alone ensured that any gnosis—even Michaelic gnosis—was complete and not one-sided. Emil Bock, however, would not be swayed. Although interested in, and even devoted to, the Mary being, “Sophia,” in Tomberg’s sense, meant little to Bock. The upshot was clear. The Christian Community did not “need” Valentin Tomberg.

[Cleric]

When we unite with the Divine essence of evil via Intuitive knowledge, can we really describe it as "evil" that we are uniting with? It seems to me that it is only within ordinary intellectual and astral phenomenology that the concept of evil, as clearly delineated from the Good, still maintains. And at this level of astral phenomenology, we certainly don't want to merge with the evil perspectives and currents, but rather observe them 'from a distance'. That simply means we retain the lucid consciousness and integrity of our "I" and its Divine source, without identifying with the astral phenomenology that we symbolically explore. Once we go beyond this astral scale and into the Devachanic spectrums where the 'common ancestors' of both good and evil perspectives can be brought into focus through the deepest sympathy and love, we no longer speak of "evil" but only the Good, Beautiful, and True. It is only when the latter is filtered through the constraints of astral asynchronicity that it delaminates into spiritual flows which are 'out of season'.

This is an interesting topic on its own. It is true that the way we comprehend evil changes continuously along the Cosmic spectrum. Yet, the above can be understood in such a way that in the spiritual world we only find the noble origins (the common ancestry) of the adversarial beings. In other words, if we need to look for actual evil, we need to look into the astral and down. This, however, is not fully correct. The spiritual world is not simply paradise but the ideal world. The origin of evil rests in an intuitive perspective that lives in an archetypal error. The ideal constellation of this perspective is such that it cannot unite itself with the Cosmic ideal harmony. This is the origin, and we cannot find that error in the astral impressions. There we already see the consequences of the error. This error is not of the kind 1+1=3 - some isolated fact. It is a different intuition for the curvature of Cosmic becoming. One that cannot be harmonized with the Divine universal telos. It is for this reason that we can only understand the nature of such errors through deep spiritual knowledge. Without such knowledge, it would be like expecting to understand a mathematical error without knowing anything about mathematics. We need to thoughtfully feel our way through the evolutionary rhythms, we need a spiritual-scientific grasp on Cosmic development. Only against that knowledge we can feel the dissonance between the ideal stances of the macrocosmic beings. And this is really what I wanted to point out. That focusing on the astral world and having unconditional trust in the being of the Church, leaves us incognizant of the Devachanic inspirations which contain the archetypal error, and whose curvatures we may unknowingly conduct into Earthly unfoldments.

It is not a comparable analogy for a very important reason, which we learn most deeply through spiritual science. It is the fact that the flow of evolution inverted through the Christ events on the historical plane. Now, there was established a certain harmony between the Spirit and its outer form such that the latter could begin participating in the former's eternal life. There are even initiates who are said to have already immortalized the physical body. Of course, such things are considered ludicrous from the default perspective of 'what reality is', but for those of us who have shifted this perspective, it is really fascinating and profound to contemplate.

These are all great points! I fully agree about the inversion and that gradually things will metamorphose much more fluidly, without reaching abrupt dead ends. We must always remember, however, that all of this happens in proportion to how much the Spirit has mastered the accretion flow of existence. In other words, the astral body (or any other) is not simply a thing that exists as an object and is gradually polished, but its perfected form is sustained and continuously perfected through the uninterrupted expression of the spirit (like the waterfall analogy). In this way, every time we speak about the perfection of individual and cultural forms, we should always ask ourselves, "What is the nature of the inner spiritual life such that these more and more perfect forms are manifested, and metamorphosed?" The immortalization of the forms is directly related to the degree to which the creative Spirit manifests. And when speaking of immortal forms, it should be fully clear (I know that you grasp it in the right way, but let's state it once more for everyone's sake) that an immortal form is not simply some object in spiritual space that has the property of imperishability. Rather, it could be better to grasp it through a metaphor. If we have an ancient and very valuable vase, we're very careful not to break it, because no one today can make it in the same way. An immortal form means that the Spirit has achieved such mastery that it can bring the form perfectly out of itself and support it as much as needed. It's like a master potter. It's not that the pots have a special property of indestructibility, but only that the master has all the forces to bring one into existence and maintain it as needed. It is important to understand this, in order not to imagine that we can take a form and externally massage it until it becomes more perfect. All perfection comes from the Spirit's mastery that manifests the forms from within.

Every need of reincarnation, reform, and so on, comes when the Spirit needs to manifest new kinds of activity, yet the form does not yield itself to smooth metamorphosis. With this in mind, we simply need to have a clear vision of the situation of the Church. The first thing is that, at this stage, the Spirit within it doesn't even recognize the need to reach such kinds of mastery. Yes, reforms are needed, there's a need to be in step with the modern times, occult sciences must tamed down and brought pointing into the central dogma, and so on, but the general attitude remains the same - the Church is here to keep the souls on the straight path while they wait for death or the second coming. So here, not only we cannot externally massage this form into perfection, but even the Spirit working within it doesn't recognize the need for a very different path of evolution while still here on Earth. So it is not a great surprise that the souls raised within the Church-being, in whom the Spirit works progressively, will feel the need for new forms. The chasm between the current exoteric and the spiritual-scientific esoteric conceptions is too great for the whole exoteric to transform without any residue. That's why I said many times that we shouldn't expect that the whole Church will monolithically metamorphose toward new and more pliable forms. For a far longer time, there will be souls who cling to the old. They will see themselves as the true keepers of Peter's bedrock. Those who speak of loosening the dogma, direct communion, spiritual science, and so on, will be seen as heretics (just as today). I cannot say how large they will be, whether they will win the 'divorce trial' and keep the cathedrals and other assets, but I think it is fairly obvious that something like this is inevitable. If we were speaking of a Church in which the Spirit is already actively and consciously working, as you explain above, then we could fully expect a more fluid transformation of the whole. For example, even though the Anthro Society may currently be seen as drying out, if the new generations could bring fresh forces, it is not that difficult to imagine that it could be revitalized. Yes, it may take some number of funerals, but it is not unimaginable. Simply because the original ideal that brought the AS together is in no way invalidated by the new generation, but only realized more fully. Again, I'm not suggesting anything, but simply giving this as an example of an institutional being that is already a little more fit for a fluid transformation, without the inevitability of a dead end and a separate spiritual successor. The same is more difficult to imagine for the Church, which has for its original mission to protect its root CA until the end of the age. That's why it seems to me the Catholic project should be far more open that a spiritual successor of the RCC must manifest, even if that means to lose its cathedrals and assets to the spouse.

[AshvinP]

These are all great points! I fully agree about the inversion and that gradually things will metamorphose much more fluidly, without reaching abrupt dead ends. We must always remember, however, that all of this happens in proportion to how much the Spirit has mastered the accretion flow of existence. In other words, the astral body (or any other) is not simply a thing that exists as an object and is gradually polished, but its perfected form is sustained and continuously perfected through the uninterrupted expression of the spirit (like the waterfall analogy). In this way, every time we speak about the perfection of individual and cultural forms, we should always ask ourselves, "What is the nature of the inner spiritual life such that these more and more perfect forms are manifested, and metamorphosed?" The immortalization of the forms is directly related to the degree to which the creative Spirit manifests. And when speaking of immortal forms, it should be fully clear (I know that you grasp it in the right way, but let's state it once more for everyone's sake) that an immortal form is not simply some object in spiritual space that has the property of imperishability. Rather, it could be better to grasp it through a metaphor. If we have an ancient and very valuable vase, we're very careful not to break it, because no one today can make it in the same way. An immortal form means that the Spirit has achieved such mastery that it can bring the form perfectly out of itself and support it as much as needed. It's like a master potter. It's not that the pots have a special property of indestructibility, but only that the master has all the forces to bring one into existence and maintain it as needed. It is important to understand this, in order not to imagine that we can take a form and externally massage it until it becomes more perfect. All perfection comes from the Spirit's mastery that manifests the forms from within.

Every need of reincarnation, reform, and so on, comes when the Spirit needs to manifest new kinds of activity, yet the form does not yield itself to smooth metamorphosis. With this in mind, we simply need to have a clear vision of the situation of the Church. The first thing is that, at this stage, the Spirit within it doesn't even recognize the need to reach such kinds of mastery. Yes, reforms are needed, there's a need to be in step with the modern times, occult sciences must tamed down and brought pointing into the central dogma, and so on, but the general attitude remains the same - the Church is here to keep the souls on the straight path while they wait for death or the second coming. So here, not only we cannot externally massage this form into perfection, but even the Spirit working within it doesn't recognize the need for a very different path of evolution while still here on Earth. So it is not a great surprise that the souls raised within the Church-being, in whom the Spirit works progressively, will feel the need for new forms. The chasm between the current exoteric and the spiritual-scientific esoteric conceptions is too great for the whole exoteric to transform without any residue. That's why I said many times that we shouldn't expect that the whole Church will monolithically metamorphose toward new and more pliable forms. For a far longer time, there will be souls who cling to the old. They will see themselves as the true keepers of Peter's bedrock. Those who speak of loosening the dogma, direct communion, spiritual science, and so on, will be seen as heretics (just as today). I cannot say how large they will be, whether they will win the 'divorce trial' and keep the cathedrals and other assets, but I think it is fairly obvious that something like this is inevitable. If we were speaking of a Church in which the Spirit is already actively and consciously working, as you explain above, then we could fully expect a more fluid transformation of the whole. For example, even though the Anthro Society may currently be seen as drying out, if the new generations could bring fresh forces, it is not that difficult to imagine that it could be revitalized. Yes, it may take some number of funerals, but it is not unimaginable. Simply because the original ideal that brought the AS together is in no way invalidated by the new generation, but only realized more fully. Again, I'm not suggesting anything, but simply giving this as an example of an institutional being that is already a little more fit for a fluid transformation, without the inevitability of a dead end and a separate spiritual successor. The same is more difficult to imagine for the Church, which has for its original mission to protect its root CA until the end of the age. That's why it seems to me the Catholic project should be far more open that a spiritual successor of the RCC must manifest, even if that means to lose its cathedrals and assets to the spouse.

It seems we have established there is no principal impossibility that the Church body can be transformed and immortalized (when understanding the immortalizing process from the proper spiritual perspective, as you indicated), when we take the Impulse that Christ already brought to the Earthly spectrum seriously. This is of crucial importance because it helps us move into 'exploratory mode' for the possibilities rather than 'final pronouncement' mode. It is quite different to say we should never imagine that existing institutional forms can maintain continuity of their forms, than to say it is possible, but we need to explore the pliability of the forms in question with sober discernment. If there is anything to take away from VT's life and work, it's that this free and imaginative exploratory process is what he desired to stimulate within souls more than anything, regardless of where it unfolds or what organization it becomes affiliated with. And it is the same with Steiner - in his lectures on Roman Catholicism, the initial emphasis was:

But, if we want to see what is happening in the world in the right light, if we do not wish to found a sect but an historical movement—something which no other movement than ours can be—then we need to know the historical background for what is all around us in the world

To be clear, we are not speaking of exploring 'alternative movements' or 'alternative spiritual paths' like medieval Christian mysticism, rather we are speaking of exploring the possibilities within the modern initiatory path, through which the soul faculties and bodily forms are progressively spiritualized, beginning with astral-cultural forms. Yet that requires us to also delve into various facts along the unified phenomenal spectrum. The so-called 'exoteric facts' are simply ways in which we anchor and orient our independent exploratory process of the depth dynamics.

So what can we say about the 'original mission' of the Church? I don't think it is accurate to characterize it as 'to protect its root CA until the end of the age'. Even Steiner highlights that, up through the Scholastic age, there was still a feeling for the spiritual foundations within the cultic life of the Church. He gives examples of certain prominent Catholic individuals refusing appointments as bishops and cardinals, for example, because they knew these mostly political appointments (by that time) would distract them from the truly spiritual work of Church life. To some extent, this pliability even existed up into the 19th century:


"There were always certain clergy who worked to bring about a certain freedom in Catholicism.

I say quite frankly that in the sixties of the Nineteenth Century in a large number of the Catholic clergy seeds of development of the Catholic principle were present which, if they had passed over into a free science, might in large measure have led to a liberation of modern humanity. There were most promising seeds in what was attempted at that time in various spheres on the part of the Catholic clergy. One day we must go into all this more closely and in great detail."


So the original mission was not at all to protect the root CA until the end of time, but something much more in keeping with the current mission of spiritual science, i.e., mastery of the Spirit that can and continually renew its forms from within (while also protecting the integrity of those forms from the corrosive influences of encroaching materialism). This original mission has obviously been restricted, deviated, and dampened in various ways over the last few centuries (as also with scientific, artistic, social, and political institutions). Steiner also explores much of that in high detail resolution, precisely so we can get a refined feeling for how the original mission has been deviated from working within its Ideal form. I am not insinuating that Steiner was endorsing some kind of Catholic renewal project, because obviously he wasn't, but again, these nuanced comments highlight that the exploratory process was primary for him, as it was for VT. There was no such thing as the pliability of the Church body (which once existed, not too long ago) being a fully settled question, once and for all. The comments are also helpful because no one would dare impute to Steiner a distorted vision of the Church, blind spots for its flaws and shortcomings, undue influence by RCC-beings, and so on.

It is very important to perceive that the original ideal of the Church would in no way be invalidated by new generations of clergy or congregation bringing fresh forces to revitalize its form from within. Because it is not only the official leadership that can modulate the direction of the Church body, but also the congregation of faithful. This congregation even includes disincarnate souls like the saints. It's difficult to imagine that all the prayers directed toward the saints from within the Church do not stimulate these beings to direct creative spiritual efforts toward the Church body from the depths, as Kaje also hinted before. Along with any incarnate John souls, they would also be lending their efforts to restoring the pliability of that body with clear knowledge of the different evolutionary pathways needed for Earthly humanity to reach its Ideal.

This is an interesting topic on its own. It is true that the way we comprehend evil changes continuously along the Cosmic spectrum. Yet, the above can be understood in such a way that in the spiritual world we only find the noble origins (the common ancestry) of the adversarial beings. In other words, if we need to look for actual evil, we need to look into the astral and down. This, however, is not fully correct. The spiritual world is not simply paradise but the ideal world. The origin of evil rests in an intuitive perspective that lives in an archetypal error. The ideal constellation of this perspective is such that it cannot unite itself with the Cosmic ideal harmony. This is the origin, and we cannot find that error in the astral impressions. There we already see the consequences of the error. This error is not of the kind 1+1=3 - some isolated fact. It is a different intuition for the curvature of Cosmic becoming. One that cannot be harmonized with the Divine universal telos. It is for this reason that we can only understand the nature of such errors through deep spiritual knowledge. Without such knowledge, it would be like expecting to understand a mathematical error without knowing anything about mathematics. We need to thoughtfully feel our way through the evolutionary rhythms, we need a spiritual-scientific grasp on Cosmic development. Only against that knowledge we can feel the dissonance between the ideal stances of the macrocosmic beings. And this is really what I wanted to point out. That focusing on the astral world and having unconditional trust in the being of the Church, leaves us incognizant of the Devachanic inspirations which contain the archetypal error, and whose curvatures we may unknowingly conduct into Earthly unfoldments.

Right, but the question is, why are we so confident that VT has completely lost sight of this archetypal error, which disharmoniously deviates from the progressive evolutionary rhythms and projects its consequences into the astral, where we can then observe its phenomenology? Is it simply because he converted to Catholicism and spoke highly of the Church? And why is trust in the being of the Church (not its momentary forms) necessarily incompatible with remaining conscious of the Devachanic inspirations? It seems clear to me that MoT is all about feeling our way through the evolutionary rhythms, albeit in a more constrained way than Steiner's trumpet blast (although in a more expanded way than KHW, for example). It is at least clearly a starting point for that inner process, and it never suggests itself to be an endpoint that terminates in the momentary state of Church teaching or astral phenomenology (which can only come from a very literalistic interpretation of some content).

[Cleric]

It seems we have established there is no principal impossibility that the Church body can be transformed and immortalized (when understanding the immortalizing process from the proper spiritual perspective, as you indicated), when we take the Impulse that Christ already brought to the Earthly spectrum seriously. This is of crucial importance because it helps us move into 'exploratory mode' for the possibilities rather than 'final pronouncement' mode. It is quite different to say we should never imagine that existing institutional forms can maintain continuity of their forms, than to say it is possible, but we need to explore the pliability of the forms in question with sober discernment. If there is anything to take away from VT's life and work, it's that this free and imaginative exploratory process is what he desired to stimulate within souls more than anything, regardless of where it unfolds or what organization it becomes affiliated with. And it is the same with Steiner - in his lectures on Roman Catholicism, the initial emphasis was:

Yes, and in exploratory mode, what do you think about the two different possibilities for transformation? One is for a progressive part to be differentiated, which is precisely what will be immortalized, while the other part remains stubborn and will be redeemed in other ways, similarly to Judaism. The other possibility is if we insist that the Church has to move forward as a whole package only - any split is inadmissible. It is very interesting to explore how these two possibilities make us feel. No doubt, it is always preferable if no split is needed, but are we ready to stand up within ourselves and say, "If these stubborn people are not willing to change, we'll have to move on. We can't wait for them forever. The clock is ticking, we're putting the whole progress of humanity on hold because of them." Or are we willing to wait centuries and centuries, keeping a low profile, and hoping that in some miraculous way everything will move forward as a whole package? As a middle ground, we may say, "Well, let's wait a hundred or so years more and we'll see. If there's no progress until then, we'll take action". But I think it is important to have clarity even today about what we would do in case that when we return to Earth, we see that a few centuries after the impulse of the spiritual soul has been kindled, the Church still indoctrinates souls in fifth epoch consciousness.

Right, but the question is, why are we so confident that VT has completely lost sight of this archetypal error, which disharmoniously deviates from the progressive evolutionary rhythms and projects its consequences into the astral, where we can then observe its phenomenology? Is it simply because he converted to Catholicism and spoke highly of the Church? And why is trust in the being of the Church (not its momentary forms) necessarily incompatible with remaining conscious of the Devachanic inspirations? It seems clear to me that MoT is all about feeling our way through the evolutionary rhythms, albeit in a more constrained way than Steiner's trumpet blast (although in a more expanded way than KHW, for example). It is at least clearly a starting point for that inner process, and it never suggests itself to be an endpoint that terminates in the momentary state of Church teaching or astral phenomenology (which can only come from a very literalistic interpretation of some content).

I don't know if he had genuinely lost sight, but this topic was entirely in the context of how MoT can be seen by the elders as a possibility to consolidate the astral bubble around the Church, where the latter remains unconditionally unquestioned (it is seen as a pristine aspect of Christ).

[AshvinP]

It seems we have established there is no principal impossibility that the Church body can be transformed and immortalized (when understanding the immortalizing process from the proper spiritual perspective, as you indicated), when we take the Impulse that Christ already brought to the Earthly spectrum seriously. This is of crucial importance because it helps us move into 'exploratory mode' for the possibilities rather than 'final pronouncement' mode. It is quite different to say we should never imagine that existing institutional forms can maintain continuity of their forms, than to say it is possible, but we need to explore the pliability of the forms in question with sober discernment. If there is anything to take away from VT's life and work, it's that this free and imaginative exploratory process is what he desired to stimulate within souls more than anything, regardless of where it unfolds or what organization it becomes affiliated with. And it is the same with Steiner - in his lectures on Roman Catholicism, the initial emphasis was:

Yes, and in exploratory mode, what do you think about the two different possibilities for transformation? One is for a progressive part to be differentiated, which is precisely what will be immortalized, while the other part remains stubborn and will be redeemed in other ways, similarly to Judaism. The other possibility is if we insist that the Church has to move forward as a whole package only - any split is inadmissible. It is very interesting to explore how these two possibilities make us feel. No doubt, it is always preferable if no split is needed, but are we ready to stand up within ourselves and say, "If these stubborn people are not willing to change, we'll have to move on. We can't wait for them forever. The clock is ticking, we're putting the whole progress of humanity on hold because of them." Or are we willing to wait centuries and centuries, keeping a low profile, and hoping that in some miraculous way everything will move forward as a whole package? As a middle ground, we may say, "Well, let's wait a hundred or so years more and we'll see. If there's no progress until then, we'll take action". But I think it is important to have clarity even today about what we would do in case that when we return to Earth, we see that a few centuries after the impulse of the spiritual soul has been kindled, the Church still indoctrinates souls in fifth epoch consciousness.

For sure, if there is a stubborn contingent holdout that is completely unreceptive to transformative efforts, then I imagine some form of split will become necessary. I suppose it's a question of what kind of resistance will be faced by the progressive part. If it's a complete regression to inquisitional-style persecution of heresy, then there would be no other option but to split. There are perhaps lesser forms of resistance where the Unknown Friends can use more subtle and creative efforts to navigate the official channels, just as we all do when navigating the rigid forms of cultural life that dominate the modern landscape.

This is where concrete experience may become invaluable, and why souls who have 'lived and breathed' within the Church atmosphere (like VT and R) may be in a better position to evaluate the internal dynamics. There are many aspects of the latter that I am simply unfamiliar with. That said, it was interesting for me to observe that the anti-modernist oath, which was a central topic of Steiner's lectures, was replaced with the confession of faith in 1967. I think we can concretely sense a progressive direction in such a development. But the overall point is that we never need to lose trust in our living spirit's capacity to follow the developments in real-time and remain discerning, to separate the wheat from the chaff. I think too many esotericists manifest that lack of trust in their stance of looking with suspicion upon anyone who becomes affiliated with the Church and tries to perceive the seeds of transformation within its forms. There is no need to automatically ascribe such a way of looking at the Church to spiritual ignorance and unexamined emotional attachments.

Right, but the question is, why are we so confident that VT has completely lost sight of this archetypal error, which disharmoniously deviates from the progressive evolutionary rhythms and projects its consequences into the astral, where we can then observe its phenomenology? Is it simply because he converted to Catholicism and spoke highly of the Church? And why is trust in the being of the Church (not its momentary forms) necessarily incompatible with remaining conscious of the Devachanic inspirations? It seems clear to me that MoT is all about feeling our way through the evolutionary rhythms, albeit in a more constrained way than Steiner's trumpet blast (although in a more expanded way than KHW, for example). It is at least clearly a starting point for that inner process, and it never suggests itself to be an endpoint that terminates in the momentary state of Church teaching or astral phenomenology (which can only come from a very literalistic interpretation of some content).

I don't know if he had genuinely lost sight, but this topic was entirely in the context of how MoT can be seen by the elders as a possibility to consolidate the astral bubble around the Church, where the latter remains unconditionally unquestioned (it is seen as a pristine aspect of Christ).

I have no doubt that MoT can be seen that way, just as the Biblical testaments themselves can and are seen that way by many people.

[Federica]

At the barest level, this entire question can be seen as follows. People need to find the Sun Being Christ by first exerting their thinking, not the other way around. The other way around is mostly barred. One doesn’t find the reason and the motivation to meditate within the traditional faithful attitude. Prayer and devotion, in the way the western religious person concieves them and practices them, don’t lead to meditation and concentration. But meditation and concentration do lead to devotion and prayer.

Externally accepted morality doesn’t lead to internally experienced morality, however, once morality has been experienced innerly, it rays out externally. It is that simple. Faith cannot facilitate the blossoming of higher cognition. But higher cognition infallibly expands to true reverence for the divine, a reverence that stands on its own, without needing to rely on the vehicle of faith. In its capacity to facilitate the advent of what needs to happen, the Church is at the same level as any other cultural institution of our time, and probably below academia and below a few others, because picturing faith as the right vector for salvation risks putting a spanner in the works, more than a philosophical or scientific approach. It is inhibiting, because it sucks the mindspace for reverence and devotion, and puts it on a spur track.

People need help to cultivate the cognition that will lead them to the divine in them. They don’t need help to glimpse at pictures of the divine, through the vehicle of belief and faith, through the vehicle of anti-real dogma. Once the soul is cocooned within the authority-reliant Church milieu, it’s very unlikely that the individual independence required for higher development will find the courage to gush forth. That’s it. This is the factual and essential way to consider the matter, independent of historico-romantic considerations about the Church institutions, karmic intermingling with the RCC, Tomberg-Rodriel infatuations, and similar obstacles.