Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

R: [anthroposophy] The riddle of Valentin Tomberg

Expand Messages
    Dear Joel, here you ll find a reply to your answer . Firstly I have to agree about the fact that the basic task is help the Christ to work . But having said
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 9, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Joel,
      here you'll find a reply to your answer .
      Firstly I have to agree about the fact that the basic task is "help the
      Christ to work ".
      But having said so I said just a little.
      Usually here we run two opposites risks: on a side we should say "outside
      GAS no salvation".
      On the other side we should say : " Spiritual research is always good". So
      there are all OK: Steiner and Guènon, Tomberg and Crowley, Aivanov and
      Gurdjieev, Aurobindo and Roerich, Besant and Krishnamurti, Heindel and Omar
      Inayyat Khan, and, why not ? Padre Pio and the "Capracotta Elder" father
      Agesilao Strozzacapponi....
      But you don't talk about "Spirit" you wrote "Christ" and this the actual
      "Alpha and Omega" of the research.
      Well, we got very peculiar means to use about it and there are just the
      Michael School ones, mainly the Living Thinking Path, that is, in itself,
      very different from the (for instance) Catholic sacramental path.
      They've got the same aim: the purification of man's Astral Body, but ,as a
      cognition path, the Michael Schooling got a new,modern and "Zeitgest
      correct" chance of "building " the Conscious Spirit Self that is unknown to
      the exoteric-catholic path, (and also to the Jesuitic esoteric one) also
      if people like Mother Therese surely experienced in deep such a inner
      But She was just one....
      So in the Michael School we have the chance either to perform such an
      inner schooling or the capacity of understand "by the fruits" (that you
      misjudge, but as a general rule the worst Waldorf School is better than any
      catholic one, let me tell ya since I was in a Catholic School five long
      years along), since there are "the fruits that talk us about the tree".
      It is so also because here are at work the Hindrancers, and not only the
      Christ , and the understanding of the fruits is a powerful, further mean to
      know "Who is at work here ?"
      So as a direct consequence of the above we know that every spiritual work,
      Anthroposophical,Hermetic,Catholic ,Zen ,Yoga and so on is "at risk", due to
      the fact that the Human Soul is the real battlefield of Cosmos today and we
      can defend such a work only if we build ourselves the thinking,willing and
      feeling weapons .
      But who is able to give such a schooling outside the Living Thinking Path ?
      Yes we can find worthy traces of it everywhere, either in the West or in
      the East, but willing or not, the Main Street is in the Michael School.
      Luckily , since we are a small number, we know also that the Spirit blows
      as He likes and there are also millions of goodwill men at work with a deep
      Christlike intention in their heart.
      Is this enough if they won't be able to grasp the conscious path to the
      Christ ? (and what are GAS responsibility- we all are involved in this-about
      it ?)
      Answers are welcome.

      Let's go back to the "arguments" topic.
      Here- in the Michael School- also springs the necessity that some
      individual feels to "argue", especially those who see themselves as
      "fighters against twisted ideas"
      Well, here we all run a further risk of failure, and that is the risk of a
      huge criticism against the actual individuals and not only against "ideas"
      For instance: did Irina (whose work I appreciate) succeed to "fight"
      against SOP 's work and not against SOP's personality and did SOP succeed
      to do the same writing against" VT ?
      I believe that they did not.and here we got a question: what is now the
      worth of such a criticism?
      Is this useless or somewhat fruitful ?
      Well I believe it to be somewhat fruitful if the following conditions are
      The worth of works like those lies mainly in the coherence, precision,
      honesty(epistemological honesty) and logical value of the work ( including
      the use of sources,infos, and so on) since the inner capacity to "separate
      the error from the one who err" is a very,very difficult art !


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Joel Wendt <hermit@...>
      To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 7:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [anthroposophy] The riddle of Valentin Tomberg

      > Dear Andrea,
      > I love it! You have these horses you ride, Tomberg and American's
      > weirdness in their approach to inner life. Then periodically you come
      > out and ride them around on the Anthroposophy List, maybe having
      > developed some nuances of "argument".
      > I would just like to point out that Prokofieff's problem with his "The
      > Case of Valentin Tomberg" was precisely that - "argument". Argument is
      > often an intellectual soul activity, basically because the underlying
      > impulse is to "convince" someone. In the Consciousness Soul age we are
      > working with the Ideal (the Good) of spiritual freedom. This means that
      > what another person "thinks" belongs to them, and that the most we are
      > justified in doing is "serving" that thinking, by providing it with
      > facts in the form of pictures (Goetheanism).
      > To persuade or insist a certain conclusion is the only right one, is to
      > begin to assert that another's thinking has some wrongness, which is of
      > course what we frequently do on this list, and what to a certain extent
      > is implied for here - I wander close to "arguing" against your arguing.
      > Then there is Gordienko's assertion in her book on Prokofieff that in
      > Anthroposophy we have an obligation to critically examine our own and
      > other's work, otherwise we don't have "science". And, on another list,
      > I have a friend who in conversation frequently examines in quite exact
      > and rigorous logic the reasoning of others, essentially asking them to
      > learn to "reason" better.
      > In part the "horse" I am riding is our social relations, particularly
      > in age of the Consciousness Soul. To what extent do we fail each other
      > in not arguing, when someone puts forward a flawed argument? How do we
      > share what we think, while on the one hand honoring the thinking of the
      > Other - the Thou - and at the same time seeking the truth?
      > This question, with its superficial conflicting element then brings us
      > to Goethean conversation, or what Marjorie Spock calls "Group Moral
      > Artistry". These are very worthy ways to be social in the age of the
      > Consciousness Soul, that still allow us to work toward the truth, but
      > can we practice this Art on an Internet list?
      > I am not sure we can, but I am also not sure we cannot. I think it
      > remains an open question, for the essential elements involve 1) agreeing
      > to work at such a social Art; and 2) understanding what is entailed in
      > practice in the situation of an Internet list. Occasionally this is
      > spoken of in anthroposophical discussion lists, but clearly on this list
      > there is little practice (we recently had one of our usual list members
      > complain that the thoughts of another were not "anthroposophical"
      > enough).
      > To circle back around to Tomberg - he wrote a wonderful little booklet
      > on this "conversation" question (social Art and seeking after truth)
      > called: "The Philosophy of Taking Counsel Together". For those who have
      > forgotten (or never heard of) my take on the "riddle of Valentin
      > Tomberg" - the question to me is not comparing Tomberg and Steiner or
      > even trying to evaluate the "fruits" of their work, or imagine we could
      > know their motives or intentions, but rather how does the "work" serve
      > Christ. In my view, Steiner "spoke" (that is they found something of
      > importance in the work) to certain people, and Tomberg to others. The
      > question then is did this "speaking" help bring them closer to Christ?
      > The audiences for Anthroposophy and Christian Hermeticism are not the
      > same, someone drawn to one is unlikely to be drawn to the other. All
      > the same, each Way leads to Christ.
      > Or so it seems to me.
      > warm regards,
      > joel
      > On Sat, 2003-03-08 at 04:44, VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:
      > >
      > > The riddle of Valentin Tomberg.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Dear Bradford and all here I'll try to give a small contribution to your
      question about Tomberg, the Pope and Catholicism.
      > >
      > > The case of VT is surely one of the open wounds in AS story.
      > >
      > > There are mainly two different- opposite ?- general insights and
      judgements about his life.
      > >
      > > The first, and I'm among these people ,is based on the fact that, above
      all, the 1945 onwards Tomberg's choose for Catholicism, was born from a
      personal crisis on several different levels.
      > >
      > > Certainly there were the social failures of the GAS, the horrible
      carnage of WW II, but, first of all, the personal occult failure of VT
      himself who tried somewhat "to rebuild" the inner esoteric core of RS's
      school of spiritual development.
      > >
      > > The question is : was VT aware of such a failure that, in itself, under
      an occult point of view, it's somehow possible to be hidden to the same
      individual who experiences it ?
      > >
      > > Here some people (SOP) talks also about an "occult action" of some
      Jesuit lodge , and, I have to say, there is some evidence about it.
      > >
      > > No doubt there is about the result. a strongest difference between VT's
      "anthroposophical" work and his following books where you can find also some
      extravagant criticism against RS's work ( since Anthroposophy IS Steiner's
      > >
      > > A "reversed conversion" , at all.
      > >
      > > There is also a second way to see VT's riddle, and it's much more
      complicated and with a lack of evidence , in my opinion.
      > >
      > > VT did a kind of "covert operation" to penetrate the "Catholic citadel"
      in order to bring there some hidden "Anthro insight" - especially about
      reincarnation- following a kind of "occult agreement " with RS himself. or
      something of a similar spiritual nature.
      > >
      > > Well, if we want to grasp some useful insight we have to ask ourselves
      :what are to day "the fruits" of VT's "operation" , whatever intention he
      had when he left Anthroposophy ?
      > >
      > > We read, a month ago, a "letter" from the CEI (Italian Bishops
      Commission) about today's spiritual movements (that they call "New Age"
      tout court)in which the "fathers" scream against "reincarnation" ,
      "homeopathy" (!!!), "pantheism" and so on.
      > >
      > > We find here a true materialistic raving like the ones used by the
      infamous Jesuit Father Gemelli in the 1930s. (Gemelli succeeded to be in the
      some time materialistic,fascist and catholic!)
      > >
      > > So the "fruits" of Tomberg's conversion are, to day, invisible in the
      Catholic field and in the same time, source of a kind of "little war" in
      the Anthropop world...
      > >
      > > On the contrary Pope Woityla is, in himself, no riddle: it's true that
      he worked like an actor in the Poland's steinerian enviroment and it's also
      true that when he received as a gift a copy of Scaligero's "Living Thinking
      Tractatus" in 1980 he said "here we got a good work!", but. also in this
      case, where are "the fruits" ?
      > >
      > > I see a good Pope's work for peace and ecology, but I see also the
      "same old story" of "hunt to the witches"- in modern dresses- in the basic
      field of spiritual research.
      > >
      > > So the Michael School and John's-Master Jesus-Manes stream are very
      very far from Peter's throne today, like they always were.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Andrea
      > >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      > Unsubscribe:
      > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.